*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
In a message dated 3/26/00 3:19:18 AM Pacific Standard Time, RoughDoc writes:
<< You did your analysis based on the European scenario. I'd suggest that
all that you said wouldn't hold up in SE Asia, where the M41 light tank was a
formidable vehicle for most of the war (for example).
Let's look at the "best" for each of the various theaters. Hard to compare
apples to oranges.
>>
While tanks are at least in theory designed to be all things for all seasons,
we know this is not true. This is a tactical as well as a design flaw as
we've seen pop up in many other fighting platform, especially aircraft. The
mouse becomes the elephant. Upgrades and over analysis have spelled the doom
of many good platforms, ironically despite the call for simplicity by people
who would operate them.
The most likely and most potentially dangerous threat to NATO during the 20
years of Cold War between 53-73 was not Cambodia or Viet Nam, but in Europe.
Most likely Germany. I disagree with Roughdoc and think it's really a case
of comparing apples to apples... if we wanted to include all possible
theaters we'll get in trouble. You might have Merkava winning over a Patton
at times! lol
In this time, 53-73, tanks were considered mostly likely to be used for
defense, but they also had to be offensive for a first strike or preemptive
strike advantage in the face of immanent aggression. The considerations when
constructing the NATO tanks of that era were: Speed, protection, power...
Rather make that power, speed and protection in that order! Protection has
since moved up the ladder.
This is an age old argument going back to WWII when numerical superiority, at
the cost of many crews defeated the stronger, better armed Panzers. The
Allies were not being callous about crew safety, they were caught up in the
need to continue momentum and to let up this "momentum" to retool to better
protected and heavier tanks would have resulted in even greater casualties.
I think the period between 53 and 73 is a fair time to compare what we now
know in hindsight and the Chieftain verses the American M47 & 48, in my
opinion, is about as close to a fair contest as anything out there. Perhaps
the Leopard would be next in line, followed by one of the French AMX
versions. Other nations tanks go rapidly down in terms of armour and fire
power from these leaders, except for the WARSAW pact vehicles.
I would like to hear from any tank drivers... alway enjoy those personal
perspectives which to me count for a lot more than designer opinions. Surely
there must be some British tanker to stick up for the old Chieftain... ?
Jack
Ferret Mk 2/3 (Best scout ever built)
SUMB ( Second best troop carrier ever built.. Unimog #1 )
PS By the way, a lot of people now think the Russian T-62 was better than
any of the NATO tanks of the time.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:27 PDT