Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Task & Purpose" channel.

The BMP isn't a tank. It was an Infantry Fighting Vehicle that has been adapted into other roles, much like our Bradley which had variants.
94
One of the things that is seldom mentioned is that the PRC equivalent to the Coast Guard uses ships identical to the frigates in its navy. These vessels are usually unmentioned and thereby underestimates their fleet size.
9
@TheBelrick The main point was it was a vehicle to carry troops and provide fire support. The problem with its initial weapon was low velcity gun and as they said hand loading.
3
@Yandarval i suggest that you check the number of large US Coast Guard vessels compared to theirs. I also suggest that you check, the type pf operations they undertake. I will agree that they serve an auxiliary role in wartime; but do not do so in peacetime.
2
@anonymuz796 It was never a light tank, the last true Russian light tank was the PT-76. This was designed to carry troops and provide fire support.
2
@samoldfield5220 I am a vet, and confusing the current government to that of President Obama's and VP Biden's time is a joke. President Obama and his. VP allowed Crimea to be taken and Artesia to unilaterally declare two Ukrainian provinces independ are the true root of this current mess.
2
Wonderfully awful for amphibious warfare. How many could carried on a landing ship.
2
@voidtempering8700 A little logic please. If these were intended for a Taiwan invasion the following issues apply. A 50 ton vehicle must be moved to Taiwan, how else would you do it except by ship. If it is an assault vehicle, you would have to have either an intact docking area to unload it from a transport ship; so it would not be useful in the initial assault landings. This means if the landings are defeated or stalled it would play no part in the combat that must succeed in order to take Taiwan. That leaves some sort of assault ship capable of landings by accross the beach. At 50 tons and that size, not many could fit into a vessel capable of doing that. These would be very tempting targets for any artillery that was operational. At that size, they would probably bog down at the landing site. All in all, I would say something like this has Russia in mind. No large water barriers like the Taiwan Straits, long established fortification along the Sino-Russian border; and potentially artillery or armored forces that could maim infantry lighter carriers.
2
The problem with raiding tactics failed the French during the Napoleonic Wars, Germany in WWII, and even the German Impetial Navy in WWI when it used unrestricted submarine warfare and its surface raiders. The US mix of raiding warfare (our unrestricted submarine warfare) combined with surface combat fleets was far more successful. When surface ships were the only threat, choke points were all important. So, todays situation requires a different strategy combining both concerns.
1
@umenhuman7573 You mean the M-113s.
1
@quanganhvu6791 While literally correct that sure is a clumsy mouthful in English.
1
@anonymuz796 i would have took go back and dig out books, but I think that you will find very little comparison. The original BMP had a troop compartment in the rear, not the engine. It used a 76mm gun, not the 76mm smooth bore weapon of the original BMP. In size the are closer and in amphibious capability and relatively light armor (although without checking, I can't say if the PT-76's armor was stronger than the BMP's which was only proof against small arms, machineguns (including .50 and 14.5mm)). In other words, I can see how the confusion came about.
1
The rear machine guns remind me of the trench clearing machine guns on tanks from between WWI and WWII.
1
Chris, please do research before pontificating. The Brist and the US among others used 8 men under a corporal as an administrative volunteer element. They formed a much larger platoon or company which was the lowest deployed combat unit. During the war the platoons wer re broken up into specialized squads or groups for an attack. The Germans did deploy an eight or nine man assault element in their storm troops which were disrupt the enemies rear areas,y headquarter, communications and supplies. The new infantry formation which was what initially used in WWII was a battle family of a machinegun eleme nt under its commander and a supporting/maneuver element with grenades and rifles. SMGs were to be used in both. The SMGs weren't delivere d in sufficient numbers and the battle families weren't completely organized due to losses and battlefield conditions. You will find that the French followed much the same logic. The US and Britain didn't follow that pathway. The US didn't adopted a true light MG, using the BAR to provide much the same role and reverted to larger sections. Manpower reductions reduced the number of these sections in the platoon during peacetime. By WWII, the US was planning on 12 an squads with no LMG or BAR and a dedicated BAR squad added to the platoon. The British on the other hand also went back to an 8 man "squad" probably as a cost cutting and manpower issue. Some form of LMG was added until they adopted the. BREN Gun which armed one man, they eventually increased their squad size to 10 as well. Now to LMGs and firepower. Germany didn't originate the. LMG. One example of an early one was the Danish Madsen (which the Germans used for awhile, going so far as equipping entire battalions with it to stop breakthroughs. Before the German MP18 came out they used various Mauser (no extra sized magazies since it did not have a detachable magazine) and Lugar variants that had detachable shoulder stocks, and 32 round drum magazines. There is a great deal more details, but you should look for yourself.
1
@samoldfield5220 I can agree that our current President seems out of touch with reality and possibly delusional at times; and probably couldn't motivate someone to breakout of a paper bag even if they had a knife. Climate change fanatics are a separate problem, the latest report that I saw mentioned today mentioned a new 10 year deadline before catastrophe. These have being issued for at least 30 years and none have come true or even come close; so excessive concern over this issue is delusional, and that definitely applies to the Executive Branch of our Nation.
1
@MostlyPennyCat That same ten years to disaster language is what I am talking about. Al Gore said that the cities wou.d be submerged long before now. Check what some of these "experts" are really and find out who gives them grants for what; then we can talk.
1
@samoldfield5220 I didn't say that he made it a condition; only that his belief in it is strong and in my opinion delusional.
1
@Aditya ChavarkarLets see, Obama did nothing while Rusxia took the Ukraine since his sanctions were meaningless; while his administraion's policies included the "Great Reset" which was to make Russia a friend. His military aid to the Ukraine included no weapons at all. If you think that President Obama and his Administration were tough on Rusdia/Putin you have been using too many magic mushrooms and MJ.
1
@Aditya Chavarkar Lets, I do look outside my window and check the thermometer. I also have lived long enough to see cycles and studied history enough (besides my military history, I studied weather among other things as my duty was emergency planning which included natural and man-made disasters). I was born in a snow storm at the end of March which doesn't normally see them. On one vacation I was stopped by a snow closed road on the 4th of July. My first year out of the service I lost two car engines to the coldest winter in the region in recorded history. I remember the year as a teenager the roads in Cook County were closed due to snow for three days, and I pulled a sled more than a mile to the store. Besidez this year which had the longest or one of the longest periods of below freezing in recorded history here. Yes, I know that these are all personal events, but the point is that they occurred years apart from each others in climate cycles. Again an example from the past, in the 1880s there was at least one year cattle on the Great Plains froze to death standing up. Geologists, using tree rings and soil core samples showing a recurring drought cycle in North America about every 50 years with a decades long one occurring around every 500 years (strangely, the estimated for the last matches records of the Little Ice Age. Remember during the warming cycle that the Little Ice Age ended, areas of Greenland that people bemoan are warming were fertile enough to grow oats and barley, as well as support animal husbandry. The Vikings settled there during the period d archelogical research verified what I just mentioned. During the same period glaciers in the Alps advanced rapidly enough to overrun villages, and wide spread crop failures due to weather caused issues. These ended in the early 1800s, if the geological and historic records follow the same cycle, we are near the peak of this warming cycle. Could man affect this natural cycle, yes. He might make the peak higher or last longe,; but with natural cycles, they will happen. Man is like an old cartoon, an ant floating down a river on a left screaming raise the drawbridge.
1
At 50 tons and at that size, i wonder how many could actually be used in an amphibious landing.
1