• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Discussion of Military, real or fictional

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

My understanding is that the chief distinction between a tank and an armored self-propelled howitzer is that the tank is capable of traversing its gun without rotating the entire vehicle, whereas the self-propelled artillery piece can not (i.e. no main turret).

That is a valid distinction. A self propelled howitzer will typically have a bigger gun for lobbing larger shells a further distance. It is also not generally well nor fully armored. A tank's gun is a direct fire weapon designed for taking out other armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "legal" (according the the CFE treaty) definition of a tank is "full tracked, heavily armored vehicle with a main gun of over 75mm designed for direct fire weighing over 16 tons".  Self propelled guns aren't heavily armored and their guns are not made for direct fire.  Most modern SPG have their guns in turrets, but not all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The term "battle tank" means a selfpropelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.

From the treaty 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, mlooney said:

From the treaty 

I am boggled. I had no idea that these terms were defined by treaty. In retrospect, it makes sense that they would be, but I can also see the emergence of troublesome edge cases used as a work-around on restrictions. Also I wonder what WW II 'tanks' are no longer tanks. Hmm, the Sherman seems to squeak by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

That is a valid distinction. A self propelled howitzer will typically have a bigger gun for lobbing larger shells a further distance. It is also not generally well nor fully armored. A tank's gun is a direct fire weapon designed for taking out other armor.

Yeah, you generally don’t see tanks capable of firing 155 mm ammunition, and howitzers are made for high-elevation indirect fire.

26 minutes ago, mlooney said:

From the treaty 

The 360 degree traverse gun was the point I was focused on. The 16,000 kg mass requirement is slightly arbitrary—there are vehicles lighter than that which would still be tanks but would be considered “light tanks” instead of “main battle tanks”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I am boggled. I had no idea that these terms were defined by treaty. In retrospect, it makes sense that they would be, but I can also see the emergence of troublesome edge cases used as a work-around on restrictions. Also I wonder what WW II 'tanks' are no longer tanks. Hmm, the Sherman seems to squeak by.

The CFE (Conventional Forces Europe) was to limit the total amount of military hardware west of the Urals.  It had to precisely define what hardware it was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. That is impressive. They don't hold well up to armor, but if you are largely in control of the region, they can cover more ground than a man on foot, you can see farther, and they are more flexible and maneuverable than a vehicle; can handle rougher terrain, albeit not as rapidly.

On the other hand, if you are vehicle poor, and are trying to make up the gap with horses, you are just throwing away horses, and their riders. If Russia attacks in force, that could be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2023 at 3:02 PM, mlooney said:

The "legal" (according the the CFE treaty) definition of a tank is "full tracked, heavily armored vehicle with a main gun of over 75mm designed for direct fire weighing over 16 tons".  Self propelled guns aren't heavily armored and their guns are not made for direct fire.  Most modern SPG have their guns in turrets, but not all of them.

The Panzer III is sad now :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

The Panzer III is sad now :(

Indeed. The 1930s 'tanks' would be 'armored fighting vehicles' by modern standards.

A comparable vehicle, the American M3 Stuart, was ineffective against heavier armor in Europe, but was useful and effective in the Pacific theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's appropriate - the Winged Hussars were Polish armored cavalry. In 1683 they were probably the world's best heavy cavalry, much to the Ottoman army's dismay. They broke the siege of Vienna, after which the Islamic threat to take Europe by force pretty much dried up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw someone who overreacted so much to the spy balloon that he called it "USA's new Sputnik moment". I mean honestly. This sort of thing was more or less a constant during the entire Cold War. Literally everyone who was anyone did it. Bollocking Denmark did it to East Germany and we are not exactly a world power. I mean what was the guy excited about? A balloon technology gap? I won't worry about it until I see examples of formation flying Chinese balloons shoot down F-16s and F-22s, presumably doing so with their superior speed and maneuverability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using a F-22 was probably expedient. It is at this point a common fighter in the inventory. I'm pretty sure any of our fighters could reach 60,000 ft and shot said balloon down. But I agree, if they used a missile, that was overkill. A few bullets should have been enough. So now I want to check how it was done.

Damn, they did use a missile. Why?

So, the Raptor climbed to 58,000 ft. The balloon was at 65,000 ft. The AIM 9 was the cheapest missile that could climb the remaining 7,000 ft. AIM 9 tracks on IR source; maybe it was modified? You could go broke doing that. The guns did not have sufficient range. I guess the fighter hit it's ceiling? Seems low.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further thoughts:

One published ceiling for the F-22 is 60,000 ft. This should be at it's maximum in the winter; air density affects the ceiling, and cold air is denser.

Not carrying any AIM 9s should increase the ceiling some, probably not enough.

Not much else gets that high. The SR-71 has been retired, and it was an expensive program. An SR-71 could certainly have reached the balloon, and probably could have ruptured it by merely flying close by, but I bet the cost would have been greater. Our spy planes are not armed, so a shoot down would not have been an option that way.

The bizarre suggestion above, posted by mlooney might actually be feasible. Ride a man up in a pressure suit with a balloon, and take it out manually.

I bet an appropriate laser could have done it from the ground. Lasers actually kind of suck as weapons, but balloons are soft targets. I think a welding laser with the proper optics (which I'm pretty sure exist) could have done the job cheaply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

A few bullets should have been enough

Weather type balloons don't pop as easily as smaller balloons do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now