Advertisement
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:14 am
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:16 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:Can you explain to me, why Lybida had such a hard time using them during their war with Chad, and the tanks were basically operated as bunkers?
I've read and heard many times that tanks are a lot harder to drive then a truck, and so I've considered wheeled TDs, or tanks that can operate on just wheels.
The Ratel and other vehicles like it seem to do well in parts of Africa, and the BTR-80 does well in most of Russia, so I think things should work out.
Gallia- wrote:A-10s were semi-regularly strafing Rolands and ZSUs in Desert Storm and 2003 without much issue tbf. AH-64 also dismantled a large portion of Iraqi SHORADS with Hellfires, even after 3d ID's failed helicopter raid.
AAA in general doesn't seem to offer any substantial protection for ground troops against air attack, TBH.
Pentaga Giudici wrote:My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:17 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:20 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles, and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.
Tbh the ergonomics for the driver of a T-34 was generally trash. Same for the turret crews in a small turret version.
by Gallia- » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:22 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles,
Pentaga Giudici wrote:and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:24 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:What about the general ease of repairing wheels compared to tracks, the general cheapness of repairing them, and the lack of various problems of tracks?
Would the additional cost of a T-55 really be of much use, considering the extra armor is mostly better if we're worring about... IDK... 85mm Soviet guns or 76mm NATO guns? I've read that the 20 pounder is comparable to the Soviet 100mm, so I doubt the armor is really...THAT great.
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:36 am
Purpelia wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:What about the general ease of repairing wheels compared to tracks, the general cheapness of repairing them, and the lack of various problems of tracks?
Would the additional cost of a T-55 really be of much use, considering the extra armor is mostly better if we're worring about... IDK... 85mm Soviet guns or 76mm NATO guns? I've read that the 20 pounder is comparable to the Soviet 100mm, so I doubt the armor is really...THAT great.
It's not that great at all. In fact if you are coming up against modern weapons and tanks built after say 1970 it's positively bad. But they still thrive across the world because in large parts of the planet, like say subsaharan africa modern weapons are hard to come by. And a force like you described in your original question would get crushed if it ran into a modern army no matter what sort of tank they had.
Gallia- wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:My comment was more about tanks being hard to drive. I keep hearing they're a lot more complex than wheeled vehicles,
Lol.Pentaga Giudici wrote:and historians mention things like "It was very hard to teach these poorly educated peasants how to man and repair their tanks", ect ect.
A rural peasant would have a lot better time driving a tank of the 1930's or whatever than anyone else I can think of. Who else would grow up with the know-how to use literal tractor tillers? City slickers born after 1903 only know Lombardi's, wind they dynamo on Model T, Charleston, be gay, eat steak frites & lie. They're literally the worst humans to put in a tank they would just give up halfway through cranking the generator on the Tiger 2 because it's too big or something.
Manokan Republic wrote:Triplebaconation wrote:Wikipedia obviously doesn't tell the full story of Bastion either
I'd hoped this thread died but I guess it's just Manokan-tier from here on out
Should I shoot this milan missile from two miles away and take out the enemy tank while traveling 60 mph on a Toyota that carries dozens of missiles on it so I can make a fast get away or fire multiple times if I miss, or the machine gun sprays me, or should I get off within 100 yards of the tank where it's inevitable they will see me and the machine gun will open fire on me and I'm traveling 3 mph with a few rockets on foot since it's heavy, and then slowly set my weapon up to fire?
Hmmm, well I did read from a single book once that people did this, so I guess missile systems could have never been mounted on a Toyota truck. All opposing evidence in huge numbers is just wrong. I.Q. levels 300+
Who would go so far as to mount an anti-tank missile on a truck, surely it's better to jump off and slowly walk towards a tank for no reason? I'm guessing there was never a time where they fired it off the back of a truck, after all they assaulted a base once and use a rocket launcher once at close range, thus all times were at close range. Surely they would remove the very heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles firing platforms welded on to the back of their trucks and remove them before battle, this is the smart thing to do? I mean in all seriousness being contrarian for the sake of it is stupid. The U.S. Bradley has TOW missiles mounted on it, the various BMP and BMD Russian vehicles fire a variety of anti-tank munitions, the Israelis have anti-tank missiles mounted on their guns... you only get out and dismount sparingly, and when you do it's with a more expensive and sophisticated missile system, to fire a few rounds, in an ambush, using stealth, rather than as a main line of attack. For obvious reasons a faster moving armored vehicles with extra machine guns mounted on it and armor to protect the men is better to fire from. One of the reason why anti-tank guns fell out of use was they took too long for infantry to jump out and set up, and in that time frame they could expect return fire or for the enemy tank to go away. Lightly armored tank destroyers largely replaced them like the Hellcat or M10 or M36, during WWII, as it became clear that infantry slowly setting up their weapons was a mistake, it was better to move in and fire quickly then move in, set down for 30 minutes setting up the weapon and unloading all the ammunition and slowly firing at the target. Having it mounted to a vehicle not only means you can move and fire faster, but that you carry all your ammunition with you, food and water, extra machine guns and armor, and that has a generator to power things built right in to the vehicle via it's engine. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to dismount and try to set the big heavy gun up when you could just keep it mounted to the vehicle. But you can go on saying all sources except yours are fake, even years later, that's fine, might want to seek out a therapist though if you're that attached to the idea.
by Gallia- » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:44 am
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 5:56 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:They're going up against Nigerians soldiers and police who haven't seen their paychecks in weeks or months.
I'm mostly really wanting to factor in cost considerations as well, along with manpower and materials.
Speaking of which, I got another weird question.... Which of the Soviet tanks before the T-72 (No T-64, expensive), is the easiest to upgun? Let's say someone went insane and wanted to replicate the Isherman/Super Sherman but with a T-55 or T-62, which sounds easier?
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:04 am
Gallia- wrote:no nigeria has literally no tanks at all
never had any
it's not like they werent constantly subsidizing tons of British defense industries in the 70s and 80s or whatever
Purpelia wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:They're going up against Nigerians soldiers and police who haven't seen their paychecks in weeks or months.
I'm mostly really wanting to factor in cost considerations as well, along with manpower and materials.
Speaking of which, I got another weird question.... Which of the Soviet tanks before the T-72 (No T-64, expensive), is the easiest to upgun? Let's say someone went insane and wanted to replicate the Isherman/Super Sherman but with a T-55 or T-62, which sounds easier?
T-55 by far. The T-62 and T-64 are very expensive comparatively. And they were a somewhat niche product that hasn't been widely exported which means update packages are going to be hard to come by. Where as the T-55 is everywhere and you literally have real world off the shelf solutions for anything your money can buy including but not limited to western 105mm guns, modern thermal optics, explosive reactive armor etc. Stuff that basically makes it comparable to the T-72 was on release (excluding the armor obviously). Now none of those are going to make it an actual match for something like a modern T-72 or other modern tanks. But that's just impossible for either the 55 or 62/64 family. The gap is just too large. And at least you can get the T-55 for cheaper.
This all being said your case is one where Rule 1 of tank warfare applies. That being if your enemy does not have tanks and you do it does not matter what your tanks are. All that matters is that you have some and they don't.
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:07 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:From what I've been reading, a lot of nations got the T-62s for free and on NS they are actually commonly cheaper then the T-55. I've done a lot of reading about why they cost a lot more, and it turns out most of those costs were exagerated, due to limited production runs, inflation, ect ect.
You are right that T-55 has a lot more upgrade packages lying around, but if you're stuck trying to make your own ammo or are in a situation like Saddam's Iraq, the T-62 is a lot better. What if the faction was getting North Korea's upgrades via connections to Iran?
Not trying to be confrontational, but a lot of the stuff you are naming requires Russia or someone like them to like you.
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:14 am
Purpelia wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:From what I've been reading, a lot of nations got the T-62s for free and on NS they are actually commonly cheaper then the T-55. I've done a lot of reading about why they cost a lot more, and it turns out most of those costs were exagerated, due to limited production runs, inflation, ect ect.
You are right that T-55 has a lot more upgrade packages lying around, but if you're stuck trying to make your own ammo or are in a situation like Saddam's Iraq, the T-62 is a lot better. What if the faction was getting North Korea's upgrades via connections to Iran?
Not trying to be confrontational, but a lot of the stuff you are naming requires Russia or someone like them to like you.
Nothing confrontational about it. I am operating off real world data because that's all I have. If you want to change the conditions to suit your setting that is something that I absolutely encourage as it is where fun comes from. And I would be happy to help you work these things out. But at that point your question really needs to change from "What is the best X" to "I want X, how do i achieve it." Or in your case "I want to have a fleet of modernized T-62's, what needs to change with the world for me to have that be reasonable." Nothing wrong about that at all.
This being said, a lot of the update packages for either tank come from non Russia/Soviet sources. Like for example the T-55 variant the British of all people built for Egypt. Tanks from this era are just very versatile if you are willing to put the money in.
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:21 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:Purpelia wrote:Nothing confrontational about it. I am operating off real world data because that's all I have. If you want to change the conditions to suit your setting that is something that I absolutely encourage as it is where fun comes from. And I would be happy to help you work these things out. But at that point your question really needs to change from "What is the best X" to "I want X, how do i achieve it." Or in your case "I want to have a fleet of modernized T-62's, what needs to change with the world for me to have that be reasonable." Nothing wrong about that at all.
This being said, a lot of the update packages for either tank come from non Russia/Soviet sources. Like for example the T-55 variant the British of all people built for Egypt. Tanks from this era are just very versatile if you are willing to put the money in.
I thought the Ramses upgrade was made in the US and uses an engine like the M60?
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:31 am
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:38 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:Do you think without having to do the crazy T-55 AGM or whatever package, a 115mm or 125mm gun would fit on a T-55?
Do you think switching to 105 or making your own 100mm smoothbore would really improve things?
I mean, if the gun knocks out T-72M1s/Vickers tanks it's worth it, I suppose. Trying to do this poorly with HEAT shells and Steel KEPs.
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:42 am
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:49 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:I have been reading about the Iran/Iraq War and as far as I understand, the T-62 Iraq could shoot through Chieftains and the Chieftains could shoot through T-72s.
I think when it comes to AP, their capabilities were close to one another, and I think the Chieftain had the same or slightly more armor.
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:52 am
Purpelia wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:I have been reading about the Iran/Iraq War and as far as I understand, the T-62 Iraq could shoot through Chieftains and the Chieftains could shoot through T-72s.
I think when it comes to AP, their capabilities were close to one another, and I think the Chieftain had the same or slightly more armor.
Chieftains use a 120mm gun. So their performance is not that surprising against early T-72 models.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:55 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:It's still rifled, so I could imagine a smoothbore gun being on par against vehicles, because the KEPs are moving faster and the HEAT isn't being spun out of effectiveness (Slight exaggeration)
by Gallia- » Wed Nov 04, 2020 6:57 am
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:00 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:It's still rifled, so I could imagine a smoothbore gun being on par against vehicles, because the KEPs are moving faster and the HEAT isn't being spun out of effectiveness (Slight exaggeration)
The difference regarding KEP's are so small they are nigh irrelevant between a smoothbore and a rifled. The only reason you'd keep the latter vs getting the versatility of the Rh120 is because you are an inertia-crippled budget-piñata for HM Treasury.
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:26 am
Pentaga Giudici wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The difference regarding KEP's are so small they are nigh irrelevant between a smoothbore and a rifled. The only reason you'd keep the latter vs getting the versatility of the Rh120 is because you are an inertia-crippled budget-piñata for HM Treasury.
I've been reading a lot of numbers that are closer to 20% improvement, then 0%, over the last few years.
I'm not entirely sure if the T-62's gun ended up being a "bored out" T-55 gun, but it started out that way according to my books. If they are measuring from the inside of the barrel, then 100mm could become 115mm.
If that is the case, then the improvement from T-55 to T-62 vs tanks, which is greater then 20%, would be the result of changing to smoothbore.
by Pentaga Giudici » Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:30 am
Purpelia wrote:Pentaga Giudici wrote:
I've been reading a lot of numbers that are closer to 20% improvement, then 0%, over the last few years.
I'm not entirely sure if the T-62's gun ended up being a "bored out" T-55 gun, but it started out that way according to my books. If they are measuring from the inside of the barrel, then 100mm could become 115mm.
If that is the case, then the improvement from T-55 to T-62 vs tanks, which is greater then 20%, would be the result of changing to smoothbore.
Nope. It's the result of using physically larger ammo which is built using more modern technology.
by Purpelia » Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:33 am
by Danternoust » Wed Nov 04, 2020 1:24 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Baltinica, Darussalam, Nassovia
Advertisement