WT Forums

I just read that this beast has a 152mm main gun, frontal armor to withstand a 120mm hit, and an armored pod inside the tank for the crew. Russia has little money. We should buy this program for a few billion.

No thanx.

The M-1A2SEP is better in every measurable way.

BTW, the old M-60A2 Patton also had a 152mm gun.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

Really?

If you can find links that would be excellent!

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... a/t-95.htm

I am not suggesting that the T-92 program be bought so that the U.S can use the tank in its army. The fact is that the U.S. land force is moving to become lighter and lighter. No one should or will fund more tanks.

Rather, if we own the T-92 program then we can control which countries in the world will have export rights. It looks like a pretty good tank. It's better to not let some pissant purchase 100 of these guys.



Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 29 2003 6:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
No thanx.

The M-1A2SEP is better in every measurable way.

BTW, the old M-60A2 Patton also had a 152mm gun.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Was it the M-60 with the 152mm or the M-551 Sheridan?

Both Type 7.

The A2 Patton and the M551 Sheridan both used a common 152mm Gun/launcher that also fired the highly innefective Sheliliegh anti-tank missile. The 152mm HEAT rd was a pretty serious anti-tank munition, but had low Mv and a limited range.

The 105, 120 and 140mm western smoothbores are far better weapons for use with APFSDSDU.

Viper, in our lifetimes the US military will probably end up destroying hundreds of T-95's in god knows whose hands.

Remember, the T-72 was the boogeyman once too, and that was a piece of trash. Inferior to even the M-60A3 by a wide margin.

The move to light forces is foolhardy, at least the way it's being done. Stryker is a stupid idea.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

SNIPER

I think aquiring it makes sense since it shouldn't be very expensive given Russia's economy. What's the loss?

As far as Stryker, I'm not a big fan of it but heavy infantry isn't going to get attention. Special Ops, Carriers, the Air Force, Light Infantry -- which can deploy in days as opposed to weeks with heavy infantry-- are in vogue now. To me that's the reality. I think they are going to maintain what we have now but not invest too much in it for the future to add to it.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 30 2003 07:50 AM

Sniper thinks the way I do in most respects.... It doesn't do you a lick of good to deploy quickly if you get slaughtered just as quick do to a lack of firepower and/or armor. Stryker is going to make many a tank crew have a bad day (and i'm not talking enemy tank crews).

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

Stinger, that is my feeling EXACTLY.

What good does it do you to rapid air deploy forces when those forces are no match for even older mechanized units?

The M-1 is air deployable by C-17. What we should be buying is more C-17's, not some Canadian wheeled coffins.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

We used to use real russian tanks/etc at NTC, but they were so unreliable($) we discontinued the practice back in the early 90's.
Now the OPFOR uses modified American vehicles to look like WP hardware. The Sheridan is one of them, as a matter of fact.


"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

Again I'm not a fan of the Stryker. It costs a lot and isn't a huge step forward. One of the core requirements -- transport via C-130 -- is only met under good conditions. Also, it can't be moved by a Chinook chopper like the M113. Beyond firepower, it isn't good cross county. Can you imagine our guys being embarassed as they can't get their Stryker through some soft terrain as an enemy 40-year old vehicle like the M113 rolls through? It's possible given the right conditions. Also, it has a .50 cal only. It lacks a 20 or 30 mm chain gun to kill enemy LAV's or jeeps and a TOW launcher for some self-defense. At least the gun can be fired from inside unlike the M113 though. And it does have the high tech screens.

As far as the Abrams, it is really heavy so I doubt it is deployable. How many M1's does the C-17 or C-5 hold? One? Heh


Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 30 2003 10:58 AM

BTW that doesn't change my view about the DoD's view. I don't agree with them sometimes but their focus is on, again, Special ops, light infantry and armor, Air Force, and and Navy. Rumsfeld makes it pretty obvious; he's anti-heavy armor and artillery in terms of truly enhancing that force.


Edited by - ViperTTB on Jul 30 2003 11:01 AM

A team of M-1's and Bradleys was deployed via C-17 into a siezed strip forward airbase in Northern Iraq during OIF.

Not only can it be done, but it's now a combat proven method.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

Edited by - m21 sniper on Jul 30 2003 2:33 PM

Sniper

Didn't know about that. Were they fully combat ready and assembled?

Yup.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

[quote]
Both Type 7.

The A2 Patton and the M551 Sheridan both used a common 152mm Gun/launcher that also fired the highly innefective Sheliliegh anti-tank missile----------

If I recall right the Sheridan had some weird ass Navy type bolt for lack of old brain cells at the moment. Breech thingie??

I don't really trust the C-17 all that much. If you need to deploy heavy tracks via air you are in a world of hurt. We didn't deploy heavy armor in Afghan as a data point.

Word from Iraq, lots of spare M-113 parts from the ones we gave them pre Gulf War. Along with some primo .50 cal MGs.

Another data point from both Iraq and Afghan. How effective were the bribes we passed out left and right? Tommy Franks has remarked he had lots of letters from Iraqi Generals that were out of the fight with some serious bribes.

Jack

<i>I don't really trust the C-17 all that much. If you need to deploy heavy tracks via air you are in a world of hurt. We didn't deploy heavy armor in Afghan as a data point.

</i>

Ummmummumummm....you can't really deploy armor in Mountains. And since they didn't really have an armor division and we didn't want to leave a big footprint I feel deploying armor would've been a burden.

I think they could of used more self propelled artillery in OEF.

Also, projection would change drastically if we deployed [url="http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviation/article/0,12543,410266,00.html"]This[/url]





Edited by - Tritonal on Jul 30 2003 3:39 PM

"I don't really trust the C-17 all that much. If you need to deploy heavy tracks via air you are in a world of hurt. We didn't deploy heavy armor in Afghan as a data point."

Actually, in the Southwestern lowlands of Afdirtistan that border Pakistan and Iran, Heavy armor would have been very useful, and near invincible vs the Afghan's limited weaponry.

I feel that armor was not deployed because of political constraints. It's hard to convince anyone you need a light tank(which Stryker isn't anyway), when you fly in 70 ton monsters.

Note that the operation involving air deployed M-1's into Northern Iraq was kept pretty quiet. Intentionally i believe.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

dont trust the C-17 that much? Why? one of the few trash haulers a person could get exited about!! It IS <i>SLOW</i> but it has capabilities that are rather unique to say the leaste.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

The C-17 has proven that it can get the heavy stuff to the fight. We need more of them.

To answer Vipers question; the C17 can hold one M1, plus some additional support equipment.


"In politics, an stupidity is not a handicap." -- Napoleon

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I feel that armor was not deployed because of political constraints. It's hard to convince anyone you need a light tank(which Stryker isn't anyway), when you fly in 70 ton monsters.

Note that the operation involving air deployed M-1's into Northern Iraq was kept pretty quiet. Intentionally i believe.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As far as I can see the closest thing we have to a "Light Tank" are the Bradley IFV's however I think their armor is just a little to thin to really qualify as such.

I wonder.... How close are the wieght and volume limitaions on a C-17 when carrying a M1? could it also load up one stryker? I would mind so much I suppose if I was reasonbly sure only half a brigade would be wiped out....<img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle>

Overkill??? I'd kill a fly with a howitzer if I had one.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

One M-1 per C-17, with crew and an extra ammunition loadout or two.

That's what i'm told.

"Trample the wounded, hurdle the dead."

yeah an M1 puts the C-17 VERY close to max. But the C-17 HAS landed a 160,000lb load onto a hard runway in 1500ft! that's 1½ aircraft carriers folks!!

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.