Magpie_Oz

I'd not have given you tuppence for an M36 at any time so I'd hope so.

Yes I see now, lol. I actually paid my own way there, but they would have to buy me to get me to go back.

At the very least take it to the General Discussion page, fair's fair

Yes just corroboration your suggestions. What is LOL about selling to Pakistan? For a great many years the Pakistanis were the proxy combatant for the US against the USSR in the "Cold-ish" War. Still are with AQ kinda

And you are at ME for thingy references ?

And you are correct, things with "Austal" in their name, apart from meaning South also represent a group that is some what ahead of everyone else. We Australs were well along the evolutionary path when the rest of the world was devoid of higher forms of intelligent life. A situation that continues to this day.

From the Vangard book on the M10 and 36 "The M36 remained a viable tank killer well into the 1950s. During the Korean War crisis of 1950, a shortage developed of the M26 and M46 tanks. As a result, the M36 became one of the preferred armoured vehicles for MAP(Military Assistance Program) transfers." I was also sold to Pakistan and members of NATO, France, Belgium, Italy and Turkey. It was still serving with the various forces in Yugoslavia in the 90's. In all case tho' it was pretending to be a tank not a TD.

ark ark Cable Guy humour ! Telstra, now there is a Telecom joke

The Israelis bought the Shermans in the 1950's so the M60 was a long way off. They did get M48's later that fought in '67 but as you say the price was right on the Shermans so they could get considerably more. The 105 came along in the 60's up until then they used a French copy of the Panther gun, ironically. I always look at the Israeli experience as an example of how much of a sound design the M4 really was. It served up until the 1980's, 40 odd years after its debut. Of course by that time it was rather different to the ones in Normandy.

Close Air Support, what is CDR?

Are you THAT keen to be a Stukcicle ?

He is Australian not French ! I thought it was the commandos that sneaked up in the dead of night? Right after Hans shows Willy a picture of his girl, or was it Hans shows his girl a picture of his willy? Either way we see the human side of an enemy and then the commandos strike.

Well if you are going to make up your own definitions perhaps you should provide a glossary. I am going off the standard military ones. Only direct "eyes-on" PGMs can be used for CAS, anything other than that needs to be a pre-planned mission that goes outside the bounds of tactical support, so not really any conceivable distance or altitude. No, certain helicopters do well in the AT role, AH-64 for example, others do not B0-105, OH-58, UH-60. An AH-64 is just as effective against troops and other battlefield targets as it is against tanks, it is an Attack helicopter not an AntiTank Helicopter. Turboprop aircraft will not survive on the modern mechanised battlefield. How many turboprops are in the US Army service in combat roles? None. Only a few Air Forces/Armies around the world do operate turboprop and then it is largely in a CoIn role for which they are well suited. As you no doubt are aware the Pucara did not fair well against the British in the Falklands who had minimal air cover. Close Air Support are air operations that are directly integrated with ground ops. End of Recon is recon, whether you are armed or not is irrelevant, it isn't CAS Interdiction is attacking enemy supply and follow on forces not CAS, sure it has an effect on the FEBA as everything does. Again not a CAS operation it is Air Superiority an entirely different mission. This has no military definition, what you are talking about falls into other categories either interdiction of echelons or direct attack of forces near the FEBA which is CAS. These can be CAS. That is not the definition of CAS, which is more defined by how much interaction there is between the ground commander and the air asset, proximity of troops is not part of that definition. Destroying a bridge 50klm away to protect a flank at the order of a Divisional Commander is CAS, carpet bombing a highway 2klm from own troops to stop movement of supplies is Interdiction. A-10 are very expensive as they are a single mission aircraft where budgets stress multirole aircraft. What is saving the A10 at the moment is its maintenance record. It achieve a 97% readiness record in the Gulf and saved itself from replacement by the more capable but more demanding F16. I'll stick with my Australian Army manuals thanks.

We weren't

Using that logic the best AT aircraft is an F22 that can sit in the stratosphere and drop an LGB on a tank and shoot down anything that comes to challenge it. What an F22 can't do however is prosecute its own attacks on the battlefield, in a similar vein to artillery is is subject to direction of a 3rd party. A helicopter on the other hand can conduct its own fight within the battle space in concert with other arms and they are the only vertical asset that can do that. This is it's forte that ability to provide rapid response firepower that is "self regulating" Helicopters have a role to play well beyond being an airborne ATGM carrier and it ties in with the mission assigned to them by the mission statement I mentioned earlier. CAS is like an artillery mission delivered by an aircraft. Success or failure in this is dependent on penetration of airspace, accurate delivery of a large volume of explosive and a safe exfil of the battle area. All things which "fast movers" excel at but are beyond a helicopter, which is why it is not in their mission. Recon is not a CAS mission (is there such a thing as unarmed recon?) it is a Cavalry mission but can and is carried out by aviation. Nothing can match a helicopter's ability to closely examine terrain over a wide area and provide immediate intel to the commander. I have no idea what close interdiction is but Interdiction is a role carried out again by fast movers, dropping big bombs on supply lines, it also isn't CAS. There is a notion of battle field isolation and/or denial of mobility that helicopters can perform which involves tying down the enemy following support assets and second echelon forces, which does over lap into the artillery side of things.

Technically there is no such thing as a "pure" AT helicopter, yes the Apache is a stand out and one of the few helicopters that is highly adapted for the anti armour role but it is not a one trick pony. It carries a range of ordnance for a variety of roles. Why do they suck at CAS ? They do not compare to a fixed wing but again fixed wing CAS is completely different to Rotary Wing CAS.

Sorry did I miss something here? You just compared writing bollocks on the Peng Challenge thread to dropping on occupied France, Holland and defending Bastogne ?

Sorry I thought you were saying that the main antitank arm in modern armies are AT Helicopters which is not the case. They are able to harry and attrite an attacking armoured force but at the end the primary anti armour role is the MBT. The Tank Destroyer Doctrine was a single purpose unit that was to be committed to battle in an essentially mobile defensive role with the expressed purpose to engage and destroy enemy tanks. This is not the role of Aviation, Anti Armour or otherwise. Yes Aviation has a role to play in offensive and defensive operations involving enemy armour but it is not tasked to carry the burden of the anti armour effort as the TD battalions were supposed to. There are elements in what you say that could be considered correct but it is a long bow to draw. One could just as easily argue that the Cavalry mission is the same as the TD or the Mech Infantry or artillery, particularly MLRS but they are not. The TD concept was significantly different and the notion of tank destroyers died once the realisation was made that modern battle depends on combined arms, which is the exact opposite of what a Tank Destroyer battalion was.

I hear ya matey! That is part of their job description, take heart that it was not you per se that they hated but they hate all forms of life. Of course show any form of discomfiture at their methods and all they do is heap it on more. My particular bug bear was for the sorry fact that I did my initial training at the OCS in Victoria. With a name like mine in that state it lead for considerable bastardisation from those who are bastards for a living. Hence my low opinion of the to-ings and fro-ings from the peanut gallery above in regards to football teams. All Senior NCO's see the world as black and white there are no explanations or different view points. Any thing Grey is bludgeoned until it is either Black or White.

True enough, almost as weak as grabbing some random photo and matching it with a vague assumed connection between me and something I have no association with. Almost as weak but not quite so.

Utter bollocks. Anti Tank helicopters have a momentary presence over the battlefield and are not in any way shape or for anything more than a supporting asset. 8 guided missiles will never replace 50 120mm APFSDS for the antitank mission hovering behind a hill will never replace an MBT in a hull down position. Armour cannot hold ground only infantry has the ability to do so. Check the mission statements of the US Army for each of the arms and their role on the battlefield becomes apparent. Most armies have the same or similar statements. "The Mission of Armor is to close with and destroy the enemy using fire, manoeuvre, and shock effect." "The Mission of Army Aviation is to find, fix, and destroy the enemy through fire and manoeuvre; and to provide combat, combat service and combat service support in coordinated operations as an integral member of the combined arms team." "The Mission of Infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and manoeuvre in order to destroy, capture, or repel their assault by fire, close combat, and counterattack."

What part of not now, not ever, never will is so hard to understand for you simpletons? It's football you Neanderthals, nothing to do with me in anyway shape or form. Move on. Oh and Joe, I understand your in love but I don't think it is appropriate to post pictures of your boyfriend.

Looks like y'all moseied in ta the wrong thread thar baw! There is nothing here that is worthy, they think patience (sic) are something you find in a hospital, weirdness is the norm and all are fragmented in some way. FLEE ! Statosaurus flee while you can !

See if it were me I'd have taken the time to learn how to spell IDIOT, being an educated Aussie, as we all are, I didn't need to though.

Flicks the bird to Spew Badly Casing pearls before swine........