For all of you who don't know crap about weapons; The T-55/T62 Has a 100 or 120 MM main gun, uses DU ammo (if they can get it) and if it has reactive armor can survive long enough on any battlefield to kill you. If you think that old and "low tech"=worthless then you are too stupid to live. The "High Tech" M-1 MBT was designed in the 70's and built in the 80's.(production stopped almost 30 years ago) It is all but obsolete, and in any event , is so complex and difficult to maintain that those cold war "tangos" will sill be running (and killing) long after the last M-1 go's to the "boneyard" as unserviceable. And since the US has withdrawn ALL heavy armor from the ETO and Mideast , those old BMP's and "tangos" are the best tank in theater.
The T55 and T62 are such old designs that if they were automobiles, they'd have tailfins. The Russians stopped manufacturing them decades ago in favor of the T64 and T72, which are almost equally obsolete, and the T80 and T90, which are T64s with varying amounts of lipstick applied. The production line in Lima, Ohio for the M1A2 SEP is still running, though mainly making replacement parts--things like new turrets with upgraded armor, stuff like that--currently.
The typical armaments of the T55 and T62 are a 100mm rifled gun and a 115mm smoothbore, respectively (more modern designs have used a 125mm smoothbore gun with a hydraulic autoloader--since around 1968), but in combat they typically use the coax MG quite a bit more, something true of all tanks since before WWII.
The T55 and T62, like a lot of other Soviet AFVs, were noted for engine problems when they were in service, and the T55 in particular was noted for transmission problems and for breaking down in the field, which is why most countries that still have any of them left in inventory have buried them in the earth up to the turrets and use them as fixed fortifications--or, as I call them, "bomb magnets."
Against the "all but obsolete" M1A1HA and M1A2 SEP, these tanks were barely even speed bumps in 1991 and 2003.
That the ANA has been able to get approximately half of their single short battalion of armor running for parade purposes at any given time by cannibalizing the other half is impressive, and probably would have been about average for the Warsaw Pact, other than the East Germans and the Russians in GSFG, had the balloon gone up in the 80s.
These being the ANA, however, who do not have a reputation for being as technically competent or as disciplined as even the Czechs, Hungarians or Rumanians in the Warsaw Pact era, I am therefore wondering if they've got a lot more than 44 rusting obsolete wrecks to pull parts off to get those two dozen or so museum pieces rolling well enough to have a parade in Kabul. Perhaps the reporter misplaced a zero. Or two.
In any event I do not grasp the poster's point. If someone were to dig a T34 out of a bog somewhere and get it started, get its weaponry into working condition and procure ammunition for it, a crew of tankers could conceivably climb inside it and make it, for a time, "the best tank in theater," an insoluble tactical problem for a rabble armed only with small arms. Once the "rabble" gets its hands on some RPGs, or even some ketchup bottles and kerosene plus a place of concealment from which to deliver them, the tankers' asses are grass. It may not even take that long; their fuel and ammo are not infinite and they're going to have to unbutton and get out some time, at which point they are no longer bulletproof and can be slain like ordinary mortal men. See also, Iraq. See also, Ukraine.
6 comments:
Maybe Uncle should give them some armored vehicles, instead of small town police departments?
Merle
Are you telling me that we did not give them M1 Abrams to go along with all of the billions of dollars worth of crap we left over there?
Well at least we did that right.
For all of you who don't know crap about weapons; The T-55/T62 Has a 100 or 120 MM main gun, uses DU ammo (if they can get it) and if it has reactive armor can survive long enough on any battlefield to kill you. If you think that old and "low tech"=worthless then you are too stupid to live. The "High Tech" M-1 MBT was designed in the 70's and built in the 80's.(production stopped almost 30 years ago) It is all but obsolete, and in any event , is so complex and difficult to maintain that those cold war "tangos" will sill be running (and killing) long after the last M-1 go's to the "boneyard" as unserviceable. And since the US has withdrawn ALL heavy armor from the ETO and Mideast , those old BMP's and "tangos" are the best tank in theater.
I have seen America's near future, and it will consist of drones in the sky, and MRAPs on the ground.
Anonymous of 6:28am:
er, what?
The T55 and T62 are such old designs that if they were automobiles, they'd have tailfins. The Russians stopped manufacturing them decades ago in favor of the T64 and T72, which are almost equally obsolete, and the T80 and T90, which are T64s with varying amounts of lipstick applied. The production line in Lima, Ohio for the M1A2 SEP is still running, though mainly making replacement parts--things like new turrets with upgraded armor, stuff like that--currently.
The typical armaments of the T55 and T62 are a 100mm rifled gun and a 115mm smoothbore, respectively (more modern designs have used a 125mm smoothbore gun with a hydraulic autoloader--since around 1968), but in combat they typically use the coax MG quite a bit more, something true of all tanks since before WWII.
The T55 and T62, like a lot of other Soviet AFVs, were noted for engine problems when they were in service, and the T55 in particular was noted for transmission problems and for breaking down in the field, which is why most countries that still have any of them left in inventory have buried them in the earth up to the turrets and use them as fixed fortifications--or, as I call them, "bomb magnets."
Against the "all but obsolete" M1A1HA and M1A2 SEP, these tanks were barely even speed bumps in 1991 and 2003.
That the ANA has been able to get approximately half of their single short battalion of armor running for parade purposes at any given time by cannibalizing the other half is impressive, and probably would have been about average for the Warsaw Pact, other than the East Germans and the Russians in GSFG, had the balloon gone up in the 80s.
These being the ANA, however, who do not have a reputation for being as technically competent or as disciplined as even the Czechs, Hungarians or Rumanians in the Warsaw Pact era, I am therefore wondering if they've got a lot more than 44 rusting obsolete wrecks to pull parts off to get those two dozen or so museum pieces rolling well enough to have a parade in Kabul. Perhaps the reporter misplaced a zero. Or two.
In any event I do not grasp the poster's point. If someone were to dig a T34 out of a bog somewhere and get it started, get its weaponry into working condition and procure ammunition for it, a crew of tankers could conceivably climb inside it and make it, for a time, "the best tank in theater," an insoluble tactical problem for a rabble armed only with small arms. Once the "rabble" gets its hands on some RPGs, or even some ketchup bottles and kerosene plus a place of concealment from which to deliver them, the tankers' asses are grass. It may not even take that long; their fuel and ammo are not infinite and they're going to have to unbutton and get out some time, at which point they are no longer bulletproof and can be slain like ordinary mortal men. See also, Iraq. See also, Ukraine.
Anon at 0213,
Thanks for taking the time to post that detailed response.
Post a Comment