so, are only two of the tracks powered or is there some kind of drive shaft running to the other two???
Posted on 10/01/2004 11:59:26 AM PDT by SLB
I'd use one of those on woodchucks.
There are some darn tough woodchucks to hunt out there.
(Especially the ones that yell "Allahu Akbar". They are hard to hunt, but take down is VERY rewarding.)
so, are only two of the tracks powered or is there some kind of drive shaft running to the other two???
Both the Russians and the Chi-Coms are improving their tank designs. I don't think anything on the table actually leapfrogs the M1A2 in terms of capabilities, but they are certainly closing the gap. If we want to stay ahead, we will have to replace platforms more than once every 5 decades.
I haven't read the book (although I did take part in the ops in Bosnia which was the first time I've ever heard the term 'thunder run' used, although perhaps it predates this) but was the weakness really in the calling for the fire support or was it in the delivery of the fire support? My experience is that you can never have too much fuel, too much ammo or too much fire support. There are always more people asking for fire than there is fire to give, and higher commanders often hold it back as one of the ways to 'shape the battlefield' as opposed to just passing it to the guys on the ground to use as they see fit.
All four of the half-tracks are powered, be it by new drive shafts, chains, hydraulics, electrical power transfer, or an additional engine I couldn't tell you.
The point is to retain manueverability even after losing an entire tread to hostile fire or to maneuvers. The M1C1 is still mobile with only 3 half-tracks functioning. Try losing a tread on an existing M1 for comparisons and contrasts...
The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!
Yes and no. It's certainly good to improve our current platforms and deploy all new technology where appropriate, but keep in mind that the standard American hand grenade, the M1 Garand rifle, the gun-style Uranium nuclear bomb, the B-52 bomber, and similar technology is still quite effective for modern battlefield usage...all of which are older than 5 decades.
What works with the M1 main battle tank are elements such as its existing armor and its turbine engine, for instance. Both of those elements *could* be improved, but such improvements would only be marginal, at least pending some radical new technological revolution.
So just as the heavy-lifting B-52 still has battlefield utility 52 years later, so too will the armor and turbine engine of the M1 Abrams MBT still retain substantial battlefield value for decades upon decades.
Now granted, the M1 can be improved. Certainly its electronics, camouflage, main battle gun, and century-old 2 track design leave room for improvements...but the basic M1 tank platform provides the sort of battlefield survivability that will be useful in urban areas and against infantry formations for many, many decades still to come. It's one of the few weapons systems that we have, in fact, that is almost completely immune to any level of RPG attacks.
...The RPG, after all, was first fielded by the U.S. Army in 1917 in France against Germany...the first known rocketed invention by the American genius Dr. Robert Goddard...and its variants are still quite deadly nearly a century later.
I'd also list mines as age-old military technology that still retain battelfield value to this very day. Ditto for chemical and biological munitions.
Some "old" technology is still quite valuable to combatants.
The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!
First thing I would have done is retrofit the A1's with the same diesel engine they are using in the Leo 2A6. Then add a better CWS and Loader's MG station...but no one asked me...
regards,
cool... that's what i thought it might be since the begining of time the fastest way to kill a tank/apc was to kill one of it's tracks first
Precisely. The old 2 track tread design gives no battlefield redunduncy. The new 4 half-track idea, however, gives you manueverability even if you've lost an entire track.
The AWB Has Expired - Gun Owners Have Won Again For All Americans!
ping
RE "but was the weakness really in the calling for the fire support or was it in the delivery of the fire support?"
It seemed to me that they just didn't bother to call for fire support in many cases. Specifically, the part that surprised me was that people holding the highway interchanges (objectives Larry, Moe and Curly) only seemed to call for artillery support once and then called it off immediately after a round landed short.
The book didn't really address the issue directly, so I'm having to read between the lines on some of this, but it was my impression that they had top priority for both artillery and air support, but didn't use it.
The teams holding the palaces eventually called in some air support when things got really hairy for them and they said A10's were stacked up over Baghdad just waiting for targets to be identified.
I don't think there were too many people calling for support in this case since these were the only troops inside Baghdad at that time.
RE "I did take part in the ops in Bosnia which was the first time I've ever heard the term 'thunder run' used, although perhaps it predates this"
The book claims that the term 'thunder run' was coined in Vietnam. It's the first time I've heard the term.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Re: fire support Given the nature of the 'Thunder Run' I am not at all surprised they weren't calling for fire. Given the nature of the urban battlefield and the very strict restrictions on inflicting civilian casualties, along with the fact they were bringing fairly overwhelming amounts of direct fire, it doesn't seem like the place for IF or CAS. Other battles seem far more appropriate places to analyze whether fires were appropriately used.
Re: thunder run, vietnam...could very well be...I missed that one by 2 decades. That combined with the fact that it is a 'non-doctrinal' term, I had never heard it used before. And armor and urban operations has not received much coverage in the Vietnam war histories. I think the term is pretty embedded in the military and maybe even public psyche now.
A "maybe out-manned, but never outgunned" BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.