Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Tanks at Korea

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    The Patton series of tanks (from the Pershings to the M-60A3) was also a Main Battle Tank and was developed concurrently with the Cent. Never heard of a U.S. purchase of Centurions...

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    The Patton series of tanks (from the Pershings to the M-60A3) was also a Main Battle Tank and was developed concurrently with the Cent. Never heard of a U.S. purchase of Centurions...
    The United States purchased Centurions and gave them to Denmark and the Netherlands under the Military Aid Program.

    Supposedly, they didn't keep them, but tested them.

    Given the history of the MBT70 and the follow-up race to equip the Army between Leo 2 and M1, the US don't seem quite sharp edge decision makers in their armour. A lot of business interests interfered. Luckily the M1 isn't a bad tank, far from it. The British got rid of their troubles once the Centurion came along. They were top notch in 50ties and 60ties, delivering their L7 105mm gun to NATO gun tanks. Nowadays the Leo 2 is rather the new Centurion by reference, export and fame, delivering "Krauss Maffei" 120mm gun to many NATO gun tanks (incl M1). Just as the Belgian FN rifles and machine guns are. No doubt there is a chance in 30 years we are speaking about the US or British reference again. Who knows?
    Last edited by steben; 08-30-2013 at 05:10 AM.
    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by steben View Post
    The United States purchased Centurions and gave them to Denmark and the Netherlands under the Military Aid Program.

    Supposedly, they didn't keep them, but tested them.
    Interesting...



    Given the history of the MBT70 and the follow-up race to equip the Army between Leo 2 and M1, the US don't seem quite sharp edge decision makers in their armour. A lot of business interests interfered. Luckily the M1 isn't a bad tank, far from it.
    ...
    I'm not sure what you mean here. The Vietnam War certainly delayed U.S. tank research and testing while the MBT-70 project was a bit of a disaster from the standpoint that the technologies being incorporated into the tank just weren't quite ready yet. I also recall something about the German and American engineers being completely confused as the former were using metrics and the latter standard for measurements of parts causing some major difficulties. Although, we should say that some good lessons were learned by both Germany and the U.S. in regards to tank development that would be applied in both the Leopard II and M-1 series. But there were some other factors for U.S. planners to consider as well.

    The effectiveness of both the Sagger and TOW AT missiles in Vietnam and Middle East certainly caused a bit of consternation in developing ultra-expensive tanks that could possibly be defeated by cheap missiles carried by infantry. But overall, the M-48A3 Patton (with the 90mm gun) had performed well overall in Vietnam as did the Centurion in Aussie service. The M-60 series was still effective against the latest generation of Soviet armor such as the T-72, especially with the upgrades of the L7 which to my knowledge can still kill most tanks today likely to be encountered. Even as the M-1's were rolling off the lines in the mid-80's, some were asking "why?", as one could build three M-60A3's for every M-1 and still save more on fuel! But the M-1 was the worlds first modern tank from multiple standpoints of automotive performance, optics, fire-control and other electronics after nearly doubling the horsepower ratings of its predecessors, and it's overall effectiveness still made it the ultimate deterrent of a desperate last gamble of a withering Soviet empire...

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    Interesting...
    I'm not sure what you mean here. The Vietnam War certainly delayed U.S. tank research and testing while the MBT-70 project was a bit of a disaster from the standpoint that the technologies being incorporated into the tank just weren't quite ready yet. I also recall something about the German and American engineers being completely confused as the former were using metrics and the latter standard for measurements of parts causing some major difficulties. Although, we should say that some good lessons were learned by both Germany and the U.S. in regards to tank development that would be applied in both the Leopard II and M-1 series. But there were some other factors for U.S. planners to consider as well.
    The US decided not to buy the Leo 2 for themselves, but develop the M1, despite the signs and promises.
    With all the politics behind us, we still can make a summary which brings the M1 to the front as being an unnecessary developped, more expensive gas guzzler with the same mobility and gun as the Leo 2. It is still as good an MBT to employ no matter what. It just caused more costs and timelag because of internal national interests.


    The effectiveness of both the Sagger and TOW AT missiles in Vietnam and Middle East certainly caused a bit of consternation in developing ultra-expensive tanks that could possibly be defeated by cheap missiles carried by infantry. But overall, the M-48A3 Patton (with the 90mm gun) had performed well overall in Vietnam as did the Centurion in Aussie service. The M-60 series was still effective against the latest generation of Soviet armor such as the T-72, especially with the upgrades of the L7 which to my knowledge can still kill most tanks today likely to be encountered. Even as the M-1's were rolling off the lines in the mid-80's, some were asking "why?", as one could build three M-60A3's for every M-1 and still save more on fuel! But the M-1 was the worlds first modern tank from multiple standpoints of automotive performance, optics, fire-control and other electronics after nearly doubling the horsepower ratings of its predecessors, and it's overall effectiveness still made it the ultimate deterrent of a desperate last gamble of a withering Soviet empire...
    hm... A whole new theme to think about ... what are today's paradigms?
    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    Quote Originally Posted by steben View Post
    The US decided not to buy the Leo 2 for themselves, but develop the M1, despite the signs and promises.
    With all the politics behind us, we still can make a summary which brings the M1 to the front as being an unnecessary developped, more expensive gas guzzler with the same mobility and gun as the Leo 2. It is still as good an MBT to employ no matter what. It just caused more costs and timelag because of internal national interests.
    You would have to indict every European power with the same accusations as all the majors ones also have their indigenous "third generation" tank designs. There are criticisms of the M-1 series' "gas-guzzling" turbine engine. But that isn't really an indictment of the tank as a whole since its modular power plant could be replaced with a suitable turbo-diesel, which is in the works. In general, the turbine engine, while thirsty, also has been shown to be very reliable and effective in real world operations. And while the Leopard series of tanks are great, the M-1 has repeatably proved itself reliable and very effective in actual combat. I know the Leopard II has been used in anger, but certainly not to the extent of the M-1A1 and not against significant armored opposition. Politically, of course it's difficult to simply buy someone else's design with an indigenous industrial base that is lagging and in need of jobs such as the U.S. was in the 1970's. It really is only relatively recently the U.S. military has deployed foreign weapon systems at all, such as the AT-4...

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,312

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    [QUOTE=Nickdfresh;190172]Interesting...

    The infantry carried wire missiles were a problem to be concerned with, the sapper, and swatter missiles as well. The one break was in that the shooter had to keep the missile on target with a joystick the entire time which was difficult enough, but more so if the attackers could put out some suppressing fire. A hit was as good as a kill in those days on either side. The U.S. Tow missile was a little different in that it had a sighting system that allowed the shooter to aim using a reticle, and by just keeping the reticle on the target, the missile would find its way to a range of just over 3km. (IIRC) We were present at a testing session of the Tow, the missiles were being fired at a test tank outfitted with extra side plates for the missiles to impact against. There were no misses, or failures although the warheads were inert and just made a loud thunk on the plates. The test had to be interrupted in order for repair welds to be made to the side plates as they would occasionally crack just from the impact. All of these missiles were a game changer for both sides of the Cold war. This was about the time someone came up with the (bad) idea for the M-60-A1-E2 Starship that had a weird turret, and carried a 152mm gun/launcher that fired either the sheleighleigh missile, or a combustible cased conventional (but lower velocity) round The main headache with the system was that it was slow to cycle between rounds due to the need for clearing the breech of debris prior to reloading it was just too slow in a pinch, so it was not around for long. The missile was fine as long as one was not in a forest.
    There were rumors of big changes for armor in light of the new missiles, that tanks may be on the way out, but that never happened especially with the advent of Chobham armor. The main Battery of the M-60 series the L-7 105mm rifle was well more than capable of dealing with any tank it might face. It was quick to load with metal cased one piece munitions, of 5 different types. Sabot, HEAT, HEP, Fletchette,(Beehive) and White Phosphorous (smoke) The M-60 was able to take on the Warsaw Pact T-72 which actually had some fire control and maybe even a turret floor. T-54's, and 62's were not so equipped, in those days anyway. While much better than its predecessors, the 72 was not superior to the 60's mostly because it was hobbled by its not so quick auto loader system which was as likely to load one's arm as charge the gun. This loader also required the ammo to be stored around the circumference of the turret ring, which was a real Achilles heel. Its crampt interior also lessened its operating efficiency in battle.
    The M-60's had (depending on version) a very reliable fire control system to go along with the excellent gun, and munitions. It used a stereo optic mechanical rangefinder that could range to 4,400 meters. This fed info into an electro mechanical ballistic computer which had a setting for each of the 5 different rounds. It also accounted for bore wear via an E.F.C. setting , and on later versions also gathered information on wind speed, and direction, and temperature and humidity. The primary gunner sight was a simple aiming cross having mil-dots in all 4 directions to account for spindrift, and target lead if needed. the gunner had only to select the munition called for, and place the cross on the target. The computer provided all of the super elevation to the gun. There was also a secondary sight coaxial to the gun, that had a separate reticle for each round which had all of the range marks, and drift corrections etched into them. I.R. sights were also there. The coax machine gun had the same velocity as the HEP round so we could have that gun aligned to the primary sight to make things a bit easier, though it also had its own sight a red circle that was supposed to indicate the area coverage, but no one I know ever used it. The Cupola mounted .50 cal had its own sights independent of all the others, as was its own traverse, and elevation mechanism. (sadly, all manual) The L-7 is still in use on the Stryker vehicles, and still does a bang-up job.
    All of the 60's had the same Continental air cooled V-12 Turbo Diesel pack, two speed auto trans, it made 950 gross H.P. 750 at the ground and got 1.1 miles per gallon on a level hard surface. Not bad for 52 tons. I see the reason behind the turbine engine of the Abrams,reliable, can burn many different types of fuel, but I also think a present technology 1,500 HP diesel pack would be a better idea overall. Just my opinion.
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 08-31-2013 at 11:54 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    I agree with the diesel pack, TG.

    As far as the guided missiles, I think the North Vietnamese (and hence the Soviets, ultimately) were also shocked by the use of TOW's on tactical choppers such as the AH-1 Cobra. I think they as much as anything else halted the 1972 NVA/VPA offensive and for the first time turned tactical aircraft into precise, effective antitank weapons - and their potential to reduce the armored concentration of any Blitz even before they met significant enemy opposition on the ground...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    Anyone who can give advice on which 1/35 scale model to use if one wants to construct a Korean Centurion (mk III)?

    LionMarc has a mk III turret (without bins) for retrogard conversion of a mkV, AFV club has excellent 1/35 20pdr barrel.
    But what base model?

    The AFV Club mkV Aussie

    or the mkV with L7?
    According to many resources, only the turret/gun was a major change. Or in other words, all the upgrades from mkIII to mkV concerned items within the turret.
    I would love to use AFV Club models because of the detailed suspension and real rubber rings on the wheels.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	afv35100.jpg 
Views:	147 
Size:	25.4 KB 
ID:	6768  
    Last edited by steben; 10-04-2013 at 09:39 AM.
    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,411

    Default Re: Tanks at Korea

    Some interesting snippets here written as AAR's at the following site regarding the performance of the M-4A3E8 Sherman:

    http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/201...orean-war.html

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •