Mate have to say I really enjoy your models!
I also love the inspiration for your setting as well! I was looking for a useful turning point like that around the 1980's to explain my "modernverse" as well, and totally never imagined the use of the Barracks bombing as a "War on Terror" trigger!
I was looking more at Gaddafi's stunt vs the US Navy taking a hot-war turn, but yours is much, much cleaner and clear-cut! Bravo this man!
My Moderns
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
Mike and I are good friends, but we will disagree forever on the M551 point. It is not the only thing we disagree about. The doctrine was meant to emphasize how to think about the employment of the vehicle, not the semantics. It had significant weaknesses that had to be considered.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
mike robel
- E5
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:41 am
Jim is right. But my theory is different. The M551 Project Manager needed another medal and the only way he could do it was to invent a new armored fighting vehicle category, thus AA/ARV for Airborne Asssult (Once)/Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle (for which it has no dedicated crewman, so the loader and/or tank commander has to get out to scout.) I am sure he got both a medal and a promotion.
The same for the M8 Armored Gun System (AGS).
You can look at them and see that they are tanks. Light tanks, but tanks.
Large Gun: Check
Turret: Check
Armored: Check
Tracks: Check
Then there is the closely related Tank Destroyer. It was called a TD because at the time, tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks. That's why there was tank destroyers. Incredibly, some tank destroyers were - wait for it - towed Anti-Tank Guns. But go figure.
Then there is the M60A2. It is a tank, but I once saw it referred to as an "Auxiliary Battle Tank". I can't remember the source, but I swear I am not making it up. (To prove I admit what I make up, I refer to the Stryker as the Stryker Target Vehicle or STV. Of course, STVs are really Armored Personnel Carriers, just like an M113 without tracks, and are also Armored Cars - which nobody wants to admit).
Common sense tells you one does not use a light tank in the same way as a main battle, medium, or heavy tank. For another interpretation, look up the history of the heavy cruiser (CA), battle cruiser (BC - except in America where we called it CB), light cruiser (CL), anti-aircraft cruiser (CL(AA)), Dreadnought (DN), and Battleship (BB).
Oh. And the 82nd and 101st used Sheridans as French tanks, because the divided them up in penny packets of 2 tank sections so everyone would have some. And we can be sure that infantry brigade combat teams will, if they ever get them, Armor .. Light tanks, as tanks, because when MBTs show up, what else are you going to use? Doctrine or not.
But what can you expect from a society that doesn't know the difference between an Assault Rifle/Automatic Rifle and a Semi-Automatic Rifle that looks like one. (Of course one could call it a SAW for Semi-Automatic Weapon, but that would get confused with the Squad Automatic Weapon (really a light machine gun) or a tool used to cut through various materials.
The same for the M8 Armored Gun System (AGS).
You can look at them and see that they are tanks. Light tanks, but tanks.
Large Gun: Check
Turret: Check
Armored: Check
Tracks: Check
Then there is the closely related Tank Destroyer. It was called a TD because at the time, tanks weren't supposed to fight tanks. That's why there was tank destroyers. Incredibly, some tank destroyers were - wait for it - towed Anti-Tank Guns. But go figure.
Then there is the M60A2. It is a tank, but I once saw it referred to as an "Auxiliary Battle Tank". I can't remember the source, but I swear I am not making it up. (To prove I admit what I make up, I refer to the Stryker as the Stryker Target Vehicle or STV. Of course, STVs are really Armored Personnel Carriers, just like an M113 without tracks, and are also Armored Cars - which nobody wants to admit).
Common sense tells you one does not use a light tank in the same way as a main battle, medium, or heavy tank. For another interpretation, look up the history of the heavy cruiser (CA), battle cruiser (BC - except in America where we called it CB), light cruiser (CL), anti-aircraft cruiser (CL(AA)), Dreadnought (DN), and Battleship (BB).
Oh. And the 82nd and 101st used Sheridans as French tanks, because the divided them up in penny packets of 2 tank sections so everyone would have some. And we can be sure that infantry brigade combat teams will, if they ever get them, Armor .. Light tanks, as tanks, because when MBTs show up, what else are you going to use? Doctrine or not.
But what can you expect from a society that doesn't know the difference between an Assault Rifle/Automatic Rifle and a Semi-Automatic Rifle that looks like one. (Of course one could call it a SAW for Semi-Automatic Weapon, but that would get confused with the Squad Automatic Weapon (really a light machine gun) or a tool used to cut through various materials.
-
redleg
- E5
- Posts: 3815
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 11:02 am
- Location: Riverside, CA
Great work, Tom! I have a special fondness for M60A3s (First tank I ever rode in) and yours look great! I also like your side-by-side shot of the M113s - you can definitely see the difference between the manufacturers.
You going to get a game going soon? I'd love to see some pics of your armor in action!
You going to get a game going soon? I'd love to see some pics of your armor in action!
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
Mike is a cynic and his main gun of choice is sarcasm, which has a maximum effective range of his voice. And he ignored my parenthetical qualification of my comment, too. I enjoy debating and exchanging information with him immensely. He has great experience and depth of knowledge in the subject of armored/mechanized warfare and simulation and you should pay attention to his opinions. He regards me as hidebound by the past. I am.
I hadn't heard the "M60A2 as an auxiliary battle tank" thing, but I agree with the sentiment. It was a horse created by a committee (as so many of our combat vehicles are). If the Army had been prescient, it would have invested the money in a better tank gun/round, but it had poured so much money into the missile that it was committed to doing SOMETHING with it. At the time, one has to rememer, though, the Russians were EVERYWHERE, and it kinda looked like we were losing. We had a major commitment of troops in Vietnam which was not going well, and 300,000 troops in Europe, but the Russkis had us up to 6 to 1. We were looking for ANYTHING that would produce a better kill ratio than the extant M68 105mm gun. The missile theoretically did that. Having done time in the A2, I would say now that the A1 battalions that were replaced by A2 battalions should have been left in the divisions and the A2 battalions simply added. The way it was done actually degraded the division's capability. The Shillelagh missile's 90% probability of kill was degraded by system weaknesses. Perhaps it would have been good for The first day, at most. The limitations of the gun round, compounded by the short barrel, made a gunfight a desperate thing. At 1500 meters, a tank is decisively engaged, and the A2 couldn't fire fast enough, nor move quickly enough. So you see, Mike and I DO agree on some things. By the time we got the A2 into service and had some experience with them, we DID have a more effective 105mm round, better sights, the M60A3, and the M1. A2s were quickly replaced.
Mike, the mission of a newspaper is to sell newspapers. If calling a semi-automatic rifle an assault rifle sells newspapers, that's what it will be called. Reporters don't know. Editors don't care, just like they can't comprehend how much a news crew with a shoulder-fired tv camera might be mistaken for an anti-tank missile team.
I know about the ships, and if the Brits had used them properly, in accordance with their own doctrine, they wouldn't have lost them at Jutland, let alone the Hood to Bismarck.
In extremis, one throws EVERYTHING into the breech, regardless of doctrine. The ultimate doctrine is "If it works, it's good."
I hadn't heard the "M60A2 as an auxiliary battle tank" thing, but I agree with the sentiment. It was a horse created by a committee (as so many of our combat vehicles are). If the Army had been prescient, it would have invested the money in a better tank gun/round, but it had poured so much money into the missile that it was committed to doing SOMETHING with it. At the time, one has to rememer, though, the Russians were EVERYWHERE, and it kinda looked like we were losing. We had a major commitment of troops in Vietnam which was not going well, and 300,000 troops in Europe, but the Russkis had us up to 6 to 1. We were looking for ANYTHING that would produce a better kill ratio than the extant M68 105mm gun. The missile theoretically did that. Having done time in the A2, I would say now that the A1 battalions that were replaced by A2 battalions should have been left in the divisions and the A2 battalions simply added. The way it was done actually degraded the division's capability. The Shillelagh missile's 90% probability of kill was degraded by system weaknesses. Perhaps it would have been good for The first day, at most. The limitations of the gun round, compounded by the short barrel, made a gunfight a desperate thing. At 1500 meters, a tank is decisively engaged, and the A2 couldn't fire fast enough, nor move quickly enough. So you see, Mike and I DO agree on some things. By the time we got the A2 into service and had some experience with them, we DID have a more effective 105mm round, better sights, the M60A3, and the M1. A2s were quickly replaced.
Mike, the mission of a newspaper is to sell newspapers. If calling a semi-automatic rifle an assault rifle sells newspapers, that's what it will be called. Reporters don't know. Editors don't care, just like they can't comprehend how much a news crew with a shoulder-fired tv camera might be mistaken for an anti-tank missile team.
I know about the ships, and if the Brits had used them properly, in accordance with their own doctrine, they wouldn't have lost them at Jutland, let alone the Hood to Bismarck.
In extremis, one throws EVERYTHING into the breech, regardless of doctrine. The ultimate doctrine is "If it works, it's good."
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
mike robel
- E5
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:41 am
Nicely put Jim.
By the way, I don't regard you as hidebound. Just strong willed and a skilled and informed debater and foil. YOu help me sharpen my arguments, although we both have strong frontal lobe armor, sometimes you do convince me...
Trivia question: How many Gator Guard Drill Team members are there on the forum? (my guess/opinion could be wrong, but I think it would have come up in some other questions.)
By the way, I don't regard you as hidebound. Just strong willed and a skilled and informed debater and foil. YOu help me sharpen my arguments, although we both have strong frontal lobe armor, sometimes you do convince me...
Trivia question: How many Gator Guard Drill Team members are there on the forum? (my guess/opinion could be wrong, but I think it would have come up in some other questions.)
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
Mike, I believe, unfortunately, that we are the only two. Not many are so intensely inclined.
So, back to the subject at hand. It appears that the vehicles featured here might be on their way to a high-profile, TTB-style M1B. Take a look at pics on line of the tank turret test bed for an idea.
So, back to the subject at hand. It appears that the vehicles featured here might be on their way to a high-profile, TTB-style M1B. Take a look at pics on line of the tank turret test bed for an idea.
All blessings flow from a good mission statement.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
Pogo was right. So was Ike.
"A Gentleman is a man who is only rude intentionally." (Churchill)
Give credit. Take responsibility.
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
-
pvt64
- E5
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:05 pm
- Location: Ballston Lake, NY
My Moderns
Chatto, thank you very much for the kind comments.
Redleg, Thank you again. I hope to get a game going with my group once this Caronavirus crap is over.
Under the United States Army tab are pictures of Armored Battalion Attachments.
https://toms1980smodernminissite.weebly.com/
Redleg, Thank you again. I hope to get a game going with my group once this Caronavirus crap is over.
Under the United States Army tab are pictures of Armored Battalion Attachments.
https://toms1980smodernminissite.weebly.com/
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
-
Hoth_902
- E5
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:08 am
- Location: Pacific Northwest
- Contact:
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am
-
mike robel
- E5
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:41 am
You are correct.
To my knowledge, they didn't have a Sheridan battalion, but the 82nd and 101st had a ground cavalry troop in the air cav squadron. I always assumed it had Sheridans, but a look at my ST -17-1 1981 edition shows them with jeeps.
The same edition shows the ground cavalry squadron with Bradleys and M60s, so perhaps they really had Sheridans, at least for a time prior to 1981, although as we both know, Sheridans were by and large out by 1978..
To my knowledge, they didn't have a Sheridan battalion, but the 82nd and 101st had a ground cavalry troop in the air cav squadron. I always assumed it had Sheridans, but a look at my ST -17-1 1981 edition shows them with jeeps.
The same edition shows the ground cavalry squadron with Bradleys and M60s, so perhaps they really had Sheridans, at least for a time prior to 1981, although as we both know, Sheridans were by and large out by 1978..
-
panzergator
- E5
- Posts: 3466
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2015 3:44 am