About World's WORST Military Vehicles Page 3
|February 16th, 2004||#23|
| || |
Nominations accepted and your points are well taken :!:
Just to complete the record, the Elephant would proably have been better off as a tank and not a tank destroyer (OK, it started out as a tank, but didn't make the cut and was revamped as a tank destroyer with a great main gun and armor, but, as you pointed out, no machine gun for close defense).
Also, the Maus was a prototype, not a production vehicle, which was a good thing for the poor wretches who would have had to use it - can you imagine breaking track on something like that If we went off into prototype land we could come up with some real stinkers
I was lucky enough to be able to tour the 1st Cav Divsion Museum at Fort Hood this past December and they have an M103 on display - what a beast! It made every other armored vehicle there seem tiny - and this included numerous other tanks, trucks, recovery vehicles and SP Howitzers. Haven't been able to see an Elephant in person, but I hear the Ordance Musem at Aberdeen Proving Grounds has one.
I'd rather be a Soldier with a mule and mountain gun, than Knight of old, with spurs of gold, or Roman, Greek or Hun. For when there's trouble brewing, they always send for me!
Mortui Non Mordent - Celeritas Et Accuratio
|March 4th, 2004||#24|
| || |
Are we talking about modern vehicles? Or old ones? I mean, that's a pretty big area, and you can't really compare the technology of the 40's and 50's with today's.
Here's MY votes:
Worst tank (pre-1950) - MAUS (too heavy, too slow, too restriced)
Best tank (pre-1950) - T34/85 (arguably best tank of WWII, easy and cheap to manufacture, a dummy could operate it effectively, reasonably well armored, automotively reliable, very combat effective)
Worst Tank (post-1950) - M60A2 (too far ahead of it's time, dangerous for the crew, too large, used the faulty 155mm Sheleileigh (sp?) missile system)
Best Tank (post-1950) - Tie between T72 and M1A1.
Everyone simmer down a sec. The M1A1 for obvious reasons, but the T72? Sure, here's why: very inexpensive to manufacture, very well armored (for when it was fielded), excellent penetration, small, low profile, fast, dummy-proof, 125mm. The only drawback to the T72 is it's short engagement range and it's autoloader.
\"Each man will charge forward to the very end, irrespective of the cost in casualties. There will be no halt and no retreat. There will only be the assault and the advance. - Gen Israel Tal Israel,1967\"
|March 4th, 2004||#26|
| || |
I was completely removing the crew factor from the equation. The lack of training of a T72 crew goes back to the conscription factor. But in the hands of a capable tank crew, the T72 can be a very effective tank.
Just like putting a Merkava crew in a M1A2 SEP. You wouldn't expect them to be as effective as a highly trained and cohesive American crew.
I was just talking about the weapons system on a purely technological standpoint.
|March 4th, 2004||#28|
| || |
Yeah, I know. But the difference is that Israelis fight because they HAVE to. There's really no choice in the matter, conscription or no conscription.
I don't remember who it was that said:
"If the Palestinians dropped all thier arms tomorrow, there would be no more conflict. If the Israelis dropped all thier arms tomorrow, there would be no more Israel."