I'm actually not thinking WWII, I'm thinking tanks in relevence to the terrain. Desert Storm was hardly World War II and it featured tanks in wide open ranges.
Seen plenty of tanks and armored vehicles which run on treads transported on the back of trucks for cross country. I guess everyone's doing it wrong. Yes, train transport too, but that's usually an extention of the truck deal. The point was that a lot of the long distance transport of tanks are done under another vehicle's power.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

I'm actually not thinking WWII, I'm thinking tanks in relevence to the terrain. Desert Storm was hardly World War II and it featured tanks in wide open ranges.
Seen plenty of tanks and armored vehicles which run on treads transported on the back of trucks for cross country. I guess everyone's doing it wrong. Yes, train transport too, but that's usually an extention of the truck deal. The point was that a lot of the long distance transport of tanks are done under another vehicle's power.

So where did you see these plenty of tanks? I'm just tired of your bull mate i can understand a civy being green but having you shovel these claims one by one is getting tiresome.

Which country you're from that you see "plenty of tracked vehicles moving around"? I mean i'm in a mechanized unit and i havent seen "a lot" of them towed around, i didnt see Germans do it either (given that they have 40 trucks and nearly 900 tanks and IFVs that'd be hard too).

When we bought our 2A4s we got a full compliment of 6 trucks with 128 tanks and yet you claim you see trucks towing these all over, does not compute buddy.

Also you dont ferry tanks into the warzone but stop in the rear and from there on they move on their own so again your defence that a tank is being lorried most of the time is just bollocks.

Alright if you say so.

Yeah, a delivery of 128 tanks just driving on the highway. That'll get a lot of support.
Also the tanks I've seen are already where they need to be. Also with the terrain like we have here, you're not going to get much out of a very high top speed.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Alright if you say so.

Yeah, a delivery of 128 tanks just driving on the highway. That'll get a lot of support.
Also the tanks I've seen are already where they need to be. Also with the terrain like we have here, you're not going to get much out of a very high top speed.

Ever heard of trains? Also in theatre you're going to race down a road to get from point A to point B as fast as you can because if enemy is there before you its a huge issue so even if its Himalayas you'll want your columns to move as fast as they can and they'll move as fast as their slowest component.

Yes, trucks and trains! When I said "trucks" I should have said moved under the power of another vehicle.
You should bring your tank to where we were and see how much of the gas you can actually floor.

Which still is far from most upgraded 2nd gen tanks, basic M-60 has 150mm and addon armor is not going to cut it regardless how good is it, the Israeli statement that "in some areas it nearly equals Merkava IV" is pure marketing with no truth to it whatsoever.

I dont know. In firepower it is as good as the MK4, I should think....

If we're talking frontal turret i'm willing to believe that but glacis doesnt seem too altered si its still weak in the chassis.

Yes, of course. I am talking max figures. Cut it down to 300-450mm KE and 500-650 CE for front hull, and down to lesss than 100mm in some areas in the rear and flanks.

You're a tiny country, speed is not that important since a tank will get from point A to point B fast anyway due to a small area it has to cover, Turkey is huge and needs faster machines.

Sinai is not tiny. 50Km/h is fast enough.

There's several things i have to say about Arab militaries but i prefer not to be vulgar, to put it simply they suck, they suck so horribly they could give Italians a run for their money which means your doctrines are not that important.

I wouldent be so quick to dismiss the Egyptian and Syrian armies. The fact is that manuver in bettalion sized formations isent somthing done at max speed.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

Sinai is not tiny. 50Km/h is fast enough.

For Israel? Definitely, and Israel is tiny, how long does it take to get across it? 2 hours?3? Turkey on the other hand is much larger and facing much more serious opponents, Greece alone is worth more than all the Arab states piled together.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

I wouldent be so quick to dismiss the Egyptian and Syrian armies. The fact is that manuver in bettalion sized formations isent somthing done at max speed.

I would, if their training regime did not change then they're pretty much Italians, take the six days war.

Now dont get me wrong IDF has lots of teeth to it but if Arab armies showed anything its that they are a joke on every level of personnel.

Maybe something has changed but i have my doubts.

read up on 1973.

Originally Posted by SHERMAN

read up on 1973.

Syrians took Golan Heights and you booted them in 14 days, plus there was Egypt which didnt do much, there's just no redeeming the Arab "military".

if you talking about a price it is much cheaper to move tanks on a trucks !
just think about how much GAS tanks eats per hour and compare it to truck ..
and these trucks are not so big usuall trucks .. and every country has thousend of it ..
Train => I talked about tiny country we are not moving tanks by trains .

AND according to Russian tank experts "VOENNOE DELO" (millitary business) the speed is not an important component of tanks mobility.
about turkey every country has it's intelegence so they should put theire tanks in the right place before enemy invasion ...

about arabs countrys do you think it was too easy to fight theme ?
Perhaps you are... we booted theme in 14 days because we had not choice a long war would kill us .. actually they lost at sinai because poor intelegence they fired a empty places ..and still Israel lost too many soldiers in that war (don't forget we are "tiny country").