T-90 vs Abrams

[James1978]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

And has the Air Force really learned the lesson about CAS? I'm old enough to remember when the A-10 came into service...and how hard the Air Force pushed for it to go straight to the Air National Guard/Air Reserve. The Warthog is an effective CAS, arguably one of the best designs...but it just is not as sexy as an F-15/F-16/F-22.

You do realize that was at a time when there was a general push to have the active duty component and reserve component using the same equipment. Guard/Reserve units got F-16s pretty quickly too.

[James1978]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

What I want to know though, is where are the Army A-10's? According to the Law, no sh*t, the law, under House Resolution 4739 the Air Force is required to give up one A10 to the Army for each OV1 that the Army retired.

.....................................

Thats the thing: Technically, the Air Force is breaking the law by not turning over the aircraft, and all ancillary equipment and personnel. The law was passed a long time ago, the Air Force is ignoring it, and the Army isn't pushing the issue for some reason. There was a pretty good study done on incorporating A-10's into Army Aviation - including Warrant Officer Pilots, something that was felt would have been very popular.

But are they breaking the law? H.R. 4739 was passed during the 101st Congress (1989-1990). That was twenty years ago and before Desert Storm. What one Congress decrees, the next one can repeal. My guess is that a subsequent Congress repealed that particular provision, probably not long after Desert Storm

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by James1978

You do realize that was at a time when there was a general push to have the active duty component and reserve component using the same equipment. Guard/Reserve units got F-16s pretty quickly too.

And the ANG/AR continued to fly F-4/A-7s until when? The F-16s went to the ANG units with the NORAD mission first and then started to replace F-4s....but some ANG units deployed to PG with F-4s at least in the Wild Weasel and recon roles.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

Not wanting to front the money and other resources required to maintain fixed-wing combat aviation assets and related skill base?

- C.

Wouldn't be fronting that as they get it all from the Air Force, but yes, finding the money to continue funding might be where the issue is.

Besides, it makes for a handy stick to use on the Chair Farce. "Keep the A10's flying, else we take them from you and we start having armed fixed wing airplanes again." Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by bobcat

honestly T-90 vs Abrams my answer is...

their about equal one on one it would come down to the who's crew is better.

but since your all bringing other variables into this:
a good FO could turn either into slag in 125 seconds counting for TOF and an adjustment.

And then another 10 minutes to figure out which side they are supposed to be shooting at... after the fact.

After all, Short is the only way Arty knows how to shoot.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

Why exactly is that?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Why exactly is that?

They lose a portion of their budget to the Army. This would relegate them to
Air Superiority (Fighters ! Their favorite!)
Strategic Bombing
Air Interdiction
Global Air cargo movement.
Strategic Missile Wings.

Once the Army got the A-10s, then the Army would take the AC-130s and Combat Talons, most probably a larger slice of Theater air cargo movement.

This would shove the Air Force almost completely out of the Special Operations Role (BIG budget money) and the Air Force would take a back seat in every operation supporting either the Army or the Navy.

They would see their role in anything but a full blown war with an adversary of like technical capability as just truck drivers.

[Legbreaker]

In other words, it makes a lot of sense for the A-10's etc to be transfered.
Also, having the ground support aircraft actually controlled by the ground forces is likely to save a lot of time, money and ultimately probably lives too.

Goes to show just how messy things can get in a massive organisation like the US government, or even just the military arms of it. There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

In other words, it makes a lot of sense for the A-10's etc to be transfered.
Also, having the ground support aircraft actually controlled by the ground forces is likely to save a lot of time, money and ultimately probably lives too.

Goes to show just how messy things can get in a massive organisation like the US government, or even just the military arms of it. There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

Absolutely makes sense. That the Army should own all CAS and Theater Transport. Will they change doctrine? Doubtful. Then again the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should always be Army too in my opinion. We had an Admiral overseeing two ground wars.

I don't call a plumber for tax advice and I think an Admiral has no business running a war in a land locked country.

I have been wrong before, though.

[Legbreaker]

I believe I owe everybody a sincere appology.
I indicated that the US government should be run using common sense and logic. What the HELL was I thinking!!! :O

[ArmySGT.]

That's why they call it a Republic, run on democratic principles.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

That's why they call it a Republic, run on democratic principles.

Principles perhaps. Practise, not so much.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Principles perhaps. Practise, not so much.

However, there you are with Us; everywhere we go.

How about those Principles again?

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

Like fascism or communism. Is that the way you see Australia going? Certainly I'm not interested in having a power with no accountability to voters deciding anything. We have enough problems with government agencies running amok without eliminating any and every form accountability. We fought a war specifically to free ourselves from a government in which the citizenry had no voice. Still, our Australian cousins have to form the government that best serves your interests.

[schnickelfritz]

On the subject of the T-90 and related high performance Russian armor, my concern would be whether they could field anywhere near enough of them to make a difference versus the current Western tanks in a real shooting war.

And are the T-80 and T-90 as dangerous to the crews as the T-72 is?

The Mi-28 and Ka-50 are fearsome machines, as are the latest Russki jets, but their problem is one of resources. They've come up with some veicles and systems that may work well enough when it starts, but will there again, be enough to make a difference? Will there be enough of the Mil-28 and Ka-50 to survive all of the Stingers and such? My guess is no.

I seem to remember an issue of the old International Combat Arms magazine in the 80's that was showing a variety of anti-helo aircraft the US was looking at...the Piper Enforcer and Cavalier Mustang 2 included. I believe that the thought that these would be used sort of as the Skyraider was in 'Nam, and sort of to hunt and shoot down Pact helicopters.

I'll tell you this...I think Western gear is generally good enough to fight the Pact to a stalemate in Europe, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to see the Tanguska SPAA at anytime from inside anything airborne. Ever.

-Dave

[Legbreaker]

Our current government will be lucky to last their current term. They are polling around 30% support which is absolutely ABYSMAL!
They lied through their teeth about a number of key issues during the last election campaign and have back flipped on some very serious issues. Some people (30%) do still support them for various reasons, however...

Globally almost all economies are struggling, or in few cases (not pointing the finger at anyone here Greece) are near as dammit bankrupt. What I'd like to see, but sure as hell will never happen, is some competent financial administrators brought in to sort out the mess, pay off debts and generally streamline governmental processes, without being subject to removal by politically driven mechanisms. A period of 12-36 months should be enough to get most countries back on track before handing back to the politicians (to screw up again).

But, none of that is EVER going to happen while humans remain, well, human.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Like fascism or communism. Is that the way you see Australia going? Certainly I'm not interested in having a power with no accountability to voters deciding anything. We have enough problems with government agencies running amok without eliminating any and every form accountability. We fought a war specifically to free ourselves from a government in which the citizenry had no voice. Still, our Australian cousins have to form the government that best serves your interests.

No modern democracy is perfect. I see major issues with both the US and Australian democratic systems. We here in the Antipodes do have a couple of significant advantages, though, in terms of democratic principals. All citizens of voting age in Australia are required to vote, so (theoretically at least) a greater proportion of citizens in Australia actually have a say in who governs them than citizens in the US do. Of course, I'm sure Americans would fiercely guard their right to disenfranchise themselves from the democratic process, if that is their individual wish.

Secondly, it seems (from waaaay down here anyway) that the US has a firmly entrenched 2 party state. Any political groups other than the Republicans and the Democrats are so tiny as to have virtually no relevance. We have 2 main parties here, too, but a number of minor parties regularly get enough seats, particularly in the Senate, to have some say in the political process. I know many people (including myself) who regard a 2 party state as not being a whole lot more democratic than a 1 party state.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Our current government will be lucky to last their current term. They are polling around 30% support which is absolutely ABYSMAL!
They lied through their teeth about a number of key issues during the last election campaign and have back flipped on some very serious issues. Some people (30%) do still support them for various reasons, however...

Yes they lied about some issues. One of the key issues to which you refer, I suspect, is the carbon tax. You know as well as I do that the current Prime Minister meant what she said when she vowed not to introduce carbon pricing but she wouldn't be the PM if she hadn't struck a deal with the Greens to form a minority government, and the cornerstone of that deal was a carbon tax. Call it lying if you want but in reality that's just political expediency. Hmm, a choice of not holding government or doing an unpopular deal and holding government. Be honest, what would you have done?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Globally almost all economies are struggling, or in few cases (not pointing the finger at anyone here Greece) are near as dammit bankrupt. What I'd like to see, but sure as hell will never happen, is some competent financial administrators brought in to sort out the mess, pay off debts and generally streamline governmental processes, without being subject to removal by politically driven mechanisms. A period of 12-36 months should be enough to get most countries back on track before handing back to the politicians (to screw up again).

But, none of that is EVER going to happen while humans remain, well, human.

Australia is currently in the strongest position economically of any developed economy in the world. You might not like the current government but they have steered Australia through a period of massive global economic turmoil very successfully. I'd rather live in Australia at the moment than just about anywhere else. Australia doesn't need any independent financial experts to fix its financial problems because it's problems are tiny compared to just about every other developed economy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd argue that the current Australian government has not done one single thing to steer Australia through a period of massive global economic turmoil. Even the Kevin Rudd government had little enough to do with Australia being in the position that she is in. What really counts for the Australian economy is having 40 years or more of selling iron ore, natural gas, wheat and wool to China, Japan and the Middle East*


* I know that that's a gross over-simplification but that's what's really saved our arse, not the (barely-existent) policies of the Gillard or Rudd governments.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Look at history of superior defense tanks like the German King Tiger as an example of what superior weapons and defense, but inferior numbers can do in ensuring victory.

The Tiger II also had an unreliable transmission that often left it immobile. And, for some unfathomable reason, the Germans used it to spearhead offensive operations during the Battle of the Bulge (Germany would have been better off deploying all their King Tigers on the Eastern Front).

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by copeab

The Tiger II also had an unreliable transmission that often left it immobile. And, for some unfathomable reason, the Germans used it to spearhead offensive operations during the Battle of the Bulge (Germany would have been better off deploying all their King Tigers on the Eastern Front).

Same with the Panzer Brigades. Those formations was tailor made for eastern front conditions with what, in hindsight, was the perfect balance of all the arms in a small agile package. On the eastern front they would have performed very well. But, with the invasion, they was force fed into the grinder that was bocage country. Also, I think they would have been much better off having the 78 SturmDivision in bocage country instead of Orsha on the eastern front, and the Lehr on the eastern front instead of the western. In the initial phases of overlord, the Panzer Division count vs. PanzerGrenadier Division count was obscenely out of balance (Something like 9 to 1, but I don't have my sources handy) Totally the wrong force balance for the conditions.


Which makes one wonder how overlord would have fared with a more reasonable mix of forces on the part of the Germans.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I believe I owe everybody a sincere appology.
I indicated that the US government should be run using common sense and logic. What the HELL was I thinking!!! :O

Its okay, take a deep breath and let the meds take control!

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Same with the Panzer Brigades. Those formations was tailor made for eastern front conditions with what, in hindsight, was the perfect balance of all the arms in a small agile package. On the eastern front they would have performed very well. But, with the invasion, they was force fed into the grinder that was bocage country.

I'd need to check, but I'm pretty sure the 100-series brigades didn't show up on the Western Front until the early September counterattacks. They weren't even authorized until very late July or early August. That was well after the bocage fighting, they were shattered in the tail end of the pursuit phase in eastern France.

In the initial phases of overlord, the Panzer Division count vs. PanzerGrenadier Division count was obscenely out of balance (Something like 9 to 1, but I don't have my sources handy) Totally the wrong force balance for the conditions.

Which makes one wonder how overlord would have fared with a more reasonable mix of forces on the part of the Germans.

I think part of the German force mix was to create an armored attack force, to drive the landings back into the sea. The restricted terrain and hindrances created by Allied airpower were a bit of a surprise to the German command.

Having said that, PG divisions, set up for defense would seem more ideal for the West. As it worked out, since the panzer divisions were rarely at full tank strength, I think it worked out the same.

I'm playing the Germans in a game of GMT's Battle for Normandy, and what I really need is infantry! If I had a few more divisions of that, I could mass the panzers and try to attack with them. As it is, I've got 3 panzer & 1 PG divisions holding the line in front of the British, too spread out to hit much of anything.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Adm.Lee

I'd need to check, but I'm pretty sure the 100-series brigades didn't show up on the Western Front until the early September counterattacks. They weren't even authorized until very late July or early August. That was well after the bocage fighting, they were shattered in the tail end of the pursuit phase in eastern France.




I think part of the German force mix was to create an armored attack force, to drive the landings back into the sea. The restricted terrain and hindrances created by Allied airpower were a bit of a surprise to the German command.

Having said that, PG divisions, set up for defense would seem more ideal for the West. As it worked out, since the panzer divisions were rarely at full tank strength, I think it worked out the same.

I'm playing the Germans in a game of GMT's Battle for Normandy, and what I really need is infantry! If I had a few more divisions of that, I could mass the panzers and try to attack with them. As it is, I've got 3 panzer & 1 PG divisions holding the line in front of the British, too spread out to hit much of anything.

Now that I had a chance to look, you are right about the brigades. If you all are into what ifs, toss the 78th into it. They had more AT assets in it than can possibly be believed compared to other units of the time.

[Webstral]

There's never enough infantry. The only item in shorter supply than the infantry is good quality infantry. I would argue that high quality infantry is a nation's best MBT, so to speak. The rifles may not be able to force a quick solution the way the tanks can, but they can fight and win under far less favorable conditions.

[Webstral]

I'm not interested in getting into a measuring contest regarding whose nation is the most democratic, has the moral high ground, or what have you. I do grow weary of the cheap shots at the US. If you have something to say, say it instead of sniping as the opportunity arises. Once you snipe, don't get your panties in a bunch when a counter-sniper team is deployed. Emoticons are cutesy, but they're also the tool of choice for teenaged girls who mean to write something hurtful but don't want to be called to account for it. Let's be men. Got a problem with the US? Just say it. I can take it. I'd prefer a straightforward conversation about the things that need improvement with the US (and they are legion) to the cheap shots and sniping, emoticons included or otherwise.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Webstral

There's never enough infantry. The only item in shorter supply than the infantry is good quality infantry. I would argue that high quality infantry is a nation's best MBT, so to speak. The rifles may not be able to force a quick solution the way the tanks can, but they can fight and win under far less favorable conditions.

Thats what I always liked about the 78th Sturm: They was an infantry division that had the KStN's modified to emphasize defensive fighting - and given a priority to draw men and equipment over most other heer units, so the level of the troops was somewhat better than some PzGren units, and about all Gren units. Unlike a lot of units in mid 44, they was awash - being one of the first to draw - with Panzerfausts and Schrecks, each company had a battery of PaK40's (they was supposed to have 6, not 3, but the evidence is sketchy if they ever drew 6, though solid that they got at least 3), with more in the Battalion Weapons Company (Normally, there was only 3 PaK's in each battalion - 78th's battalions had 12 or more), as well as an Organic PanzerJager BN, another PaK Company, and STuG battalion - complete with riders armed with Assault Rifles.

Granted, they was by and large foot infantry, not motorized, but that isn't a fault when it comes to Bocage country. I really believe having this division dug into the Bocage area would have been a stupidly painful unit to dig out.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

What really counts for the Australian economy is having 40 years or more of selling iron ore, natural gas, wheat and wool to China, Japan and the Middle East*

I hope so... I am considering moving down there to Perth, and working some jobs about Karratha.

If I can get a work Visa ($350 Aus.) to apply, and the plane ticket is $1200+ US.

Be fun though.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

I hope so... I am considering moving down there to Perth, and working some jobs about Karratha.

If I can get a work Visa ($350 Aus.) to apply, and the plane ticket is $1200+ US.

Be fun though.

Mate, good luck to you! There are jobs galore in the NW of Western Australia at the moment. Good money to be had too. I've been out of mining-related industries for some years but if there is any assistance I can offer, PM me and we can swap details.

[ArmySGT.]

Thanks.

I am a Heavy Equipment Operator, but I don't have enough experience to compete when the job pool is so small. So I have been building my business related computer skills as an Admin assistant. Not glorious but, it pays my bills.

T-90 vs M-1

T-90 is Toast. That reactive armor is not all that impressive and has been discarded in the west. Jammers have been discarded in the West too.

The West is going to active defenses that shoot down ATGMs. Look to see those on M1A2s in the near future.