|March 2nd, 2012||#1|
| || |
|March 2nd, 2012||#2|
| || |
Tiger ll Perhaps? One of the few remaining examples is kept in Bovington.
Still not British or American
Maus Tank Maybe? Only one non running example remains period, and it's in Russia I believe, also one of Hitler's dreamed super tanks... You would think he was trying to compensate for something....
Or maybe one of the itereations of the Stalin Tank?
Tell me where your friend saw one of these tanks? What muesum and maybe I can help you find your answer, as in many cases it could be a case of mistaken Identity. I have seen people mislabel a Jag Panther at the Patton muesum before an American tank, simply because it was in America, in all actually it was Captured by the U.S., not built by it.
Thing is, although there maybe large peices of hardware out there like maybe the M 109, which is a self propelled artillery piece.
The "big" or "heavy" tanks like these died out for a reason, take the Abrams or Challenger ll for example, which is the modern British and American MBT's.
Compared to these Behemoths, is that they lacked mobility and were difficult to delpoy, and often underpowered, which could severely limit their effectiveness and ability to respond to threats, as in the case of the Tiger ll, which if it wasn't swarmed by a unit of T 34's.
Allied Airpower or artillery could have made short work of them once spotted.
The thing is, although many modern armored battle tanks may have slightly different speed performance, but the priciple is the same in terms of mobility.
If a large hulking tank can't cross obsticles, or bridges or what not, it's not going to be very effective on a fast paced mechnized battlefield.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience"- Dwight D. Eisenhower , Jan 17,1961.
Last edited by Yossarian; March 2nd, 2012 at 17:44..
|March 2nd, 2012||#3|
| || |
Thank you. Whatever it was it was most certainly active. My friend said that he saw it on some Australian military base. I saw it from Indian Mountain in west Utah, near Dugway AFB. I do not know whether it was a trick of the light or something real, but it was huge, fast, and looked well armored and armed.
|March 2nd, 2012||#4|
| || |
Recovery vehicles in many militaries around the world, are not really the latest and greatest, like in the British armed forces for example, I believe for a while even with the New Challenger Chasis in service, they still used Centurion recovery vehicles.
Support and recovery vehicles are nor usually armed nor really used for combat roles so it's not really paramount to have the newest or most advanced chasis around to pull stuff out of ditches.
The term tank is often used out of context, many people often mislabel IFVs and tracked APCs or mobile artillery as "tanks", which I suppose in a loose sense the term is all in the eye of the beholder,
Unless you are like me and try to use the Webster definition for everything.
Also find one of our Austrailian members here who has served or is serving, they use American Abrams tanks I believe.
Last edited by Yossarian; March 2nd, 2012 at 19:04..
|March 2nd, 2012||#6|
| || |
One company or another has been messing around with the idea of upgrading the gun on the M 109 for about a decade now, as far as project allocation Officials with the U.S. Army and their efforts to convince Congress to continue to foward funding is another story.
The reason I bring this up, is in regards to this thread, I am not sure if it will be up on the Export market, or in particular already is, and if Australia is already using these vehicles.
Maybe if so, is that what your friend claimed he saw?
Seeing the M 109 in person, I can say, It doesn't really look much larger in any aspect, other thatn the cross seciton than an Abrams,
But maybe the deminsions say otherwise.
Last edited by Yossarian; March 3rd, 2012 at 04:23..
|March 3rd, 2012||#7|
| || |
Australia has a tender out at the moment for self propelled AFATDS integrated artillery that is larger than anyone else currently uses (we want a 52 caliber gun rather than the standard 39 caliber you can get the gun easy enough but integrating the targeting system takes time...). It isn't in service yet it is mostly likely going to be a modified Korean as9 (which shares commonality with the abrams). As for tanks we use the same type of tanks as the US does Abrams tanks which we are currently upgrading to A2 standard.... Australia has nothing planned or in current service that matches the description that LtStryker suggests.
The oath to serve my country as a soldier did not include a contract for the normal luxuries and comfort enjoyed within our society. On the contrary it implied hardship, loyalty and devotion to duty regardless of rank.
Last edited by captiva303; March 3rd, 2012 at 01:02..
|March 3rd, 2012||#8|
| || |
Being a bit of a 'turret-head' I have a big interest in armoured vehicles, I can tell you that Australia has not manufactured any tanks in the last 50 years so there is no 'supertank' being made here.
From the description, is sounds like SP artillery. The Abrams is a large vehicle, the only other armoured vehicles I can think of that would be larger (and fitted with a gun) are self propelled arty.