Comments by "Sar Jim" (@sarjim4381) on "Matsimus"
channel.
-
33
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
5
-
4
-
I don't think a T-34/76 really qualifies as an MBT today. The l/70 version of the Bofors has been in service for 70 years now. It has been the subject of many upgrades for naval and land service. With the advent of the proximity fused round and increased muzzle velocity, the L/70, when combined with radar and laser fire control, is still a decent weapon against low flying fast jets. The British rounded up every L/60 and L/70 gun it could get, including some from museum ships, to mount everywhere there was space and strength available before ships headed south to the Falklands. The RN, which had pretty much scrapped light AA armament by then, got a new found respect for guns that would put up enough metal to either shoot down a low flying attack aircraft, or at least worry the pilot enough that his aim may have been just a little off before he dropped his bombs. The 40mm guns have now all been replaced with 30mm guns in the RN, but all her major surface vessels retain a light AA/asymmetric threat armament of 30mm, 20mm, 7.62mm miniguns, plus .50 caliber HB BMG and 7.62mm GPMG machine guns strapped to almost every lifeline upright on the ship. It's a lesson the USN will someday learn the hard way.
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I just knew this would bring out all the anime boys. The Japanese, maybe more so than any other major power, have never been much of a tank producing country. Their lack of even mediocre medium tanks in WW!! hurt them badly during fighting the the Pacific. They were forbidden to produce any kind of AFV after the war, and what was views as the minal defence needs of Japan was met by the US supplying Sherman and Chaffee tanks, both thought to be the most adaptable to Most Japanese terrain. It was only after the outbreak of the Korean war that Japan was given permission to produce an MBT and AFV. With a requirement to attempt to produce a Japanese designed and sourced tank. The Type 61 was the result. It didn't enter service until 1961, and the US T-48, which was the broadly similar US tank used as the basis for the Type 61, was already considered obsolescent at best as an MBT. It had a 90 mm gun at a time when almost all western MBT's had transitioned to the 105 mm gun.
The Type 74 was another attempt to build a mostly Japanese sourced modern MBT, starting in 1962. IN an attempt to speed up design and production, the decision was taken to obtain a license to built the then ubiquitous Royal Ordnance L7 105mm cannon rather than repeat the same error made with the 90 mm gun of the Type 61. The JGSDF could have purchased the Leopard 1 or M60 Patton tanks in any numbers required, but the desire to produce a true Japanese MBT caused slow production and spiraling costs, and it took almost fourteen years to produce just 870 examples, far below the originally envisaged 2000 required. It was another Japanese MBT that was obsolescent by the time it entered service in numbers in the late 1970's.
The Type 94 continued on this path, using a foreign 120 mm smoothbore gun but producing most the test of the components in Japan. While the result was a tank that at least wasn't obsolescent on entry to service, the usual spiraling costs combined with the Asian financial crisis and collapse of the Soviet Union, meant a mere 341 examples would be produced. It remains to be seen if the Japanese Type 10 will finally be the one produced at a small enough cost and with enough technology to break this downward spiral of Japanese tank design.
1
-
Here's what's going to be an unpopular question. The Canadian army has 23,000 regular soldiers. Including reserves and rangers, the total is about 40,000. The population of Canada is about 37.5 million, The NYPD has about 45,000 sworn regular officers. If the NYPD was the Canadian army, you'd increase the number of personnel per 1,000 citizens by almost 18%. Except for NATO requirements and peacekeeping missions, both of which Canada does very well, what's the need for an army as now constituted? Norway, by comparison, has about 5.4 million people and an army of 8,800 regulars and 30,000 reserves. Norway has about one soldier for every 139 people compared to Canada having one of every 913 people. Would Canada be better served with amsal core of say 10,000 professional soldiers that can be used to train reservists when the need arose? Could the rest of the manpower be better used beefing up agencies like the RCMP? I don't know the answer since I'm not Canadian, but armies are expensive while policing agencies are a lot less so. I realize politically the whole idea is a non-starter but, as an army, there are too few people for the size of the country and population while it's too militarized to operate as a police agency. There must be a middle ground/
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RomanHistoryFan476AD It's been done this way since the advent of diesel fuel and tanks. These no other method that will generate as large and dense a cloud of obscurant as the injection method. It's cheap, fast, and a tank carries an almost unlimited amount of the smoke generating fuel onboard compared to ten or twelve smoke canisters. The troops aren't going to be hurt by a short term exposure, and they carry gas masks if it looks like a longer time will be spent in the smoke. As I wrote, this is the best way to cover the positioning of troops or vehicles so the enemy won't see it.
What's a bit of a weakness is your, what?, 15 or 16 year old self, who's learned everything you know about tanks from playing some video games and watching YT videos, now here to teach us. I doubt you're ever read a real book about tanks. From that fount of knowledge, you then want to pop in here and educate us about how a Challenger 2 makes smoke when this was clearly the first time you ever run into the idea of injecting diesel into a manifold. Learn to read, watch, and get educated. Leave the typing for later,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1