Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51 Party Bureaucrat Quote: ==Tanks are also expendables, their destruction in battle is inevitable, and trained tank crews are far more valuable than the tank they are in. ![]() Quote: point taken... I like this thing. I don't know what it's called in English though. ![]() "Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz "Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
Soviet cogitations: 6211
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2004, 20:49 Ideology: Democratic Socialism Embalmed Quote: Definitions: 1) Hard work. 2) Crap if it gets stuck in the snow in a snowy land. ![]() "Phil Spector is haunting Europe" -Dr. Karl H. Marx
I mean the vehicle...
![]() "Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz "Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista
[admin *edit*: Okay guys, I'll delete the last 3-4 posts because I fail to see their relevance]
![]() Ya Basta! Last edited by Carius on 22 Dec 2007, 10:51, edited 5 times in total.
The main benefit of a larger tank isn't that it's easier to escape. Larger (heavier) MBTs usually have thicker armor, can carry more ammunition, and can have heavier and thicker armor. The easiest way to get the difference is to give a run down to the T-90 and M1A2 stat-lines.
Last edited by Carius on 06 Jan 2008, 03:55, edited 1 time in total.
Some great memories from my recent year as a conscript gunner in 1st Tank Company:
![]() Swamped! Cadet Möttönen, at your service Major Malfunction reporting ![]() Gunnery training, live 120 mm rounds
Some random points or thoughts.
The APC that no one seems to knows its name is an awesome unit. I trained with a unit in Norway that was equipped with those they are beasts. A great piece of equipment for that part of the world. Despite wheter or not Finland has a large stock pile of muntions, and spare parts. Logistics is still going to be a nightmare. Nothing is interchangeable between Nato standard equipment and former soviet equipment. Basically Finland has to have say a armourer trained in both Nato and Soviet maintence procedures, or a specalist for say Soviet equipment and then another for Nato euipment. I believe that Huge tank is actually a self propelled Arty gun, I could be wrong since i am only fimaliar with say the t-54 through t-80 tanks, American tanks from the m5 to the M1a2, the sTank, and various tanks from world war 2. If i am not also mistaken that is a BMP-1 apc even if i am wrong and its a bmp-2 its still outdated and useless in a modern combat environment(just so theres no confusion the M2 bradley is also outdated). The tow system is also ancient might aswell be an rpg-7. I am not trying to knock the Fine Military Forces of Finland, just giving some random points. I have had the honor of training with Northern European Forces and those countries where very proficent. I would assume that Finland is the same.
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25 Ideology: Other Leftist Politburo
"Nobody respects a country with a poor army, but everybody respects a country with a good army. I raise my toast to the Finnish Army." J. Stalin 1948
Quote: BMP-1 and BMP-2 are obsolete compared to newer generation IFVs, but they have impressive upgrade potential for being so old pieces of equipment. That, and being reliable and numerous helps a lot, but not enough to compete with latest IFVs. They are not useless however, having obsolete infantry support vehicle is better than having no support at all. Bradley is still a good machine, even if it is as old as BMP-2. Finnish Army fields Leopard 2A4s as MBTs. Old machines, but still upper tier crates. Their armor is obsolete compared to 21st century modifications, but finnish tank country is "knife fighting". Distances are generally much smaller than those of Mid-Europe. I think I shot twice (counting laser tag training in field) in multi-kilometer ranges. |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||