Where did all the funnies go?

[argie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Argie,

The two fact files I have are called T"he Corps of Engineers, The War Against Germany", and "Corps of Engineers, Troops and Equipment" -- US government publications, but I do not have a split binding version and NARA does not either. Do you have any way of ordering US Government publications in Argentina? I could look up there call numbers for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea... Maybe I must contact the USA embassy or consulat... But I think I will not receive too much atention this days...

[JonS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

...I was referring to the "fabulous" performance of the Challenger in all the NATO competitions up until they were discontinued...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't comment

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...the fact that they tend to loosen their loose tracks... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't comment

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>... that they still use the rifles 120mm ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was no accident, nor a throwback (If anything, the smoothbore is a throwback: the first cannons were all smoothbore... ). The fact that it also fires a highly capable AT round in addition to being able to fire an effective anti-pers round was seen as being a Good Thing, rather than a hinderance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...that it is so fast that it indeed brings back memories of the WW II Churchill...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, it's speed is lower than another well known front-line MBT, but not that much. Comparing it to the Churchill ...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ... that it originally lacked a ballistics computer worth its name (see again the first point)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

... but it now has a FCS of sufficent quality that they are seriously looking at dropping the always-work-in-pairs principle, and moving to the smallest practical maneuver unit beinga single vehicle...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...et cetera perge perge...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't comment.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Simon Fox]

As Brian correctly points out ARVEs were conversions of Mk3 and 4 Churchills. The conversions were performed by the MG Car Co and included application of additional armour plate on a number of surfaces. This is not widely recorded in general texts. Which is why looking only at such texts can give one the wrong information.

For precisely the same reason if I wanted information on US combat engineer practices in the ETO I wouldn't read a history of the British 79th armoured div. to get it

As for the Churchills, the common availability of uparmouring kits for the Mk 3 and 4 meant that many were converted by REME workshops to almost the equivalence of the heavier Mks. Not only that but there were apparently excess numbers of the Mk8 turret available. Hence the confusion of types ie Mk9-11.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

As Brian correctly points out ARVEs were conversions of Mk3 and 4 Churchills. The conversions were performed by the MG Car Co and included application of additional armour plate on a number of surfaces. This is not widely recorded in general texts. Which is why looking only at such texts can give one the wrong information.

For precisely the same reason if I wanted information on US combat engineer practices in the ETO I wouldn't read a history of the British 79th armoured div. to get it

As for the Churchills, the common availability of uparmouring kits for the Mk 3 and 4 meant that many were converted by REME workshops to almost the equivalence of the heavier Mks. Not only that but there were apparently excess numbers of the Mk8 turret available. Hence the confusion of types ie Mk9-11.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except, oddly enough, the Avre and Ark are both mentioned in US text as "supporting engineering vehicles".

[Simon Fox]

Gee, oddly enough, they are!

Looks like they got one thing right then.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Gee, oddly enough, they are!

Looks like they got one thing right then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One is forced to wonder what Mr.Slapdragon thinks they were used for...

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Gee, oddly enough, they are!

Looks like they got one thing right then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, the US Army texts I have are not ignorant of these vehicles, and in fact discuss them as if they were available to US engineers.

What we are getting away from is that the advocates of a mistreated commonwealth want 101 new vehicles added to CM. Those vehicles may or may not be useful compared to the coding effort they would require. No one has yet taken the bit in the teeth and shown how there limitations would get coded, how common they were when used at the front, and really, has assembled a good discussion of how they would fit in the tactical situation and reality of CM.

Take the Ark --everyone likes to quote its 5 minuet deployment time, but that ignores that it needed a preplanned (at least eyeballed surveyed) drop zone, and needed complete cover from fire since it could be droped in 5 minutes, it took nearly 30 minutes to position, seat, and be ready for tank one. Any one who thinks this was done under 88mm defensive fire needs to get a better understanding of the vehicle.

The advocates wont even take the manual that advised AVRE bobbin tanks to dump the bobbin by firing explosive bolts if they came uner fire since the bobbin was flamable and dangerous if still in place when the firing started.

In other words, there needs to be a clearer understanding of these vehicles, there use, and why they might not be appropriate for the game, and this understanding needs to be realistic, and backed up by evidence, before a case can be made for there inclusion. The simple reason is the coding will be much more difficult than any other vehicle, and they just may not show up all that much. Or if they did, they may be so hard to use in the typical CM game, or so boring to use that the game would be better off just assuming they were already used as the game starts (which is a likely case with the Ark at least).

[Michael Dorosh]

It would be nice, as you mention, Slapdragon, to be able to purchase them already in place.

There would be other questions too - like how do you destroy them? In CM, bridges cannot be deliberately blown, for several reasons.

So the quandry is - do you make the ARK impervious to enemy fire? Makes it a little unfair to other armoured vehicles.

If not, how do you model the damage - at what point does the Ark become rendered unusable by tanks?

And how often did this ever happen?

Would it have been a doctrinal issue not to use them when enemy armour was in the vicinity - for that reason? Doubt it, but who knows.

There are a host of engineering things that need to be remodelled, not just AVREs - from mine clearance (what about mine laying - has anyone argued for that yet?) to roadblock clearing to deliberate demolitions of houses and bridges to mouseholing to wire clearance...since all of this has been deliberately avoided, the AVRE is just one part of a larger picture that has been left out entirely - and for valid reasons. Once you let AVREs in, you have to treat the entire subject of engineering equally. BTS has adopted an all or nothing approach - with the emphasis on nothing. And rightly so - roadblock clearance, for example, was a lengthy process (especially when the Germans boobytrapped them) and most engineering tasks are beyond the scope of the game - and some of them, like bridge demolition, have drastic effects on play balance.

One hopes this will all be addressed in future games - especially mouseholing and mine clearance.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[M Hofbauer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: Therefore I'd suggest that perhaps the NATO tank gunnery competitions are not necessarily the be-all and end-all of determining which tank is "better" - except in the artificial conditions of the competition.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

basically I agree with your opinion on the "value" and realism of these competitions, but I cannot help but comment that a comparison jumps to my mind regarding the initial argument in this thread on whether or not the training footage of orchestrated, rehearsed and set-up ARVE action are representative of the vehicles' actual use in combat or not, and Mr Beazleys

"I'd suggest that the RTR would have portrayed accurated how they intended their equipment to be utilised in a film they were showing to their own troops/commanders. Showing your own troops/commanders fantaties tends to have bad results in the end."

and your comments

"Indeed, but again, this is not a case of what they were told but what they were demonstrated, via a film - remember in those days, there was no Industrial Light and Magic Company - the camera did not lie. Moreover, why bother to lie? Most military training films are not propaganda - they are designed to inform. I've shown as an army projectionist quite a fair number of them and they are meant to show the soldier something that cannot be more easily explained by other means."

regarding using the gunnery competitions as a means of comparing the vehicles and the performances of the rules - why bother to lie, and why create artificial rules?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian:Oh, and BTW, the use of a rifled gun barrel is not quite as silly as it seems - considering that the secondary round the British use is HESH, not HEAT,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the main problem with a rifled barrel is not the rotation caused in HEAT rounds (this can be offset and today HEAT is not that much of an issue anymore anyways), but the friction generated by the rifling, resulting in a lower Vo and therefore lower AP.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: Err, Hogg, Chamberlain and Gander<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been unaware so far that these authors -who did a wide range of books- should have made an authoritative book dedicated to the subject, but perhaps you would disclose more about it?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>and a couple of other sources that I have all state that the Puppchen was not generally issued, nor a terribly succesful weapon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

both is not the issue here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: The sources might be wrong, and you might have access to different sources, but that does not necessarily mean that I or Kim are lying merely for repeating what we have read in our sources.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have yet to see these sources claim that the Puppchen was "as rare as rocking horse ****". Mr Beazley btw has so far refused to give ANY facts regarding his original preposterous claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: As to the funnies versus Puppchen - I'll lay odds that you'd have been far more likely to see an AVRE in you were serving in a British armoured Regiment than you were a Puppchen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

although your statement is a bit sketchy, if I interpret it correctly than this is nothing but your iteration of your opinion which is what we are arguing about.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Brian: Out of a matter of interest, what do your sources say about the PAW-600? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

the PWK 8 H 63 ("PAW 600") was rare indeed, but that is beside the point because the original statement pertained to the Puppchen not the PAW 600 (an altogether vastly different weapon concept)(that said with the PAW you'ld have had a much better argument, I have a total production number for the PAW 600 of 260 here, with the delivery of the first 81 in January 1945, and a documented combat use of 105 by the 30. and 31. PzGrenRgt. Now, please don't take the following as impolite are as offending, but if you do a search under my member number and PWK as a key word then I am sure you will find an earlier article of mine on this subject)

[M Hofbauer]

JonS,

the Challenger may now have in the meantime eventually been refitted and enhanced sufficiently to put it on par with the Abrams and the Leopard 2A4, when in the meantime these MBTs have already taken the next step in evolution. E.g., compare the AP performance of the rifled Challenger gun to the new 120mm L/55 and the DM53 ammunition plus the other improvements on the Leo2A6.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Challenger blah blah, M1A2 blah blah blah, you all forget that the WORLD'S BEST MBT is the French Leclerc !!

And I ain't kidding (it's rare, but here I'm serious )

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Take the Ark --everyone likes to quote its 5 minuet deployment time, but that ignores that it needed a preplanned (at least eyeballed surveyed) drop zone, and needed complete cover from fire since it could be droped in 5 minutes, it took nearly 30 minutes to position, seat, and be ready for tank one. Any one who thinks this was done under 88mm defensive fire needs to get a better understanding of the vehicle.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet, according to Brian's source, which is a British Army publication, it took only 3-5 minutes to deploy, Mr.Slapdragon. You appear still to confuse the differences between preparation time and deployment time. Is this deliberate on your part, it appears so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The advocates wont even take the manual that advised AVRE bobbin tanks to dump the bobbin by firing explosive bolts if they came uner fire since the bobbin was flamable and dangerous if still in place when the firing started.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, are we discussing bobbins or fascines, Mr.Slapdragon? Two very different pieces of equipment.

As to the flammability of the fascine, perhaps this is why in the film I saw they brought them forward as fast as possible, to minimise the time they were exposed to the "enemy"? Of course, as I mentioned, the wargames rules I'm generally familar with all seem to assume that this is a slow operation, something this film I think put paid to.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In other words, there needs to be a clearer understanding of these vehicles, there use, and why they might not be appropriate for the game, and this understanding needs to be realistic, and backed up by evidence, before a case can be made for there inclusion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rather think that this is the purpose of this discussion. You however appear to believe this is a point-scoring exercise and about the creation of a mythical creature called the "uberBritish", Mr.Slapdragon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The simple reason is the coding will be much more difficult than any other vehicle, and they just may not show up all that much.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This site provides an excellent start as to the distribution of the main versions of the "funnies" within 21 Army Group. It doesn't list the less common vehicles but then, the claim has never been they are anything other than "less common" - merely that they were available and that they were used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Or if they did, they may be so hard to use in the typical CM game, or so boring to use that the game would be better off just assuming they were already used as the game starts (which is a likely case with the Ark at least).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps, with the Ark but the fascine? It was an integral part of the AVRE's equipment.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

JonS,

the Challenger may now have in the meantime eventually been refitted and enhanced sufficiently to put it on par with the Abrams and the Leopard 2A4, when in the meantime these MBTs have already taken the next step in evolution. E.g., compare the AP performance of the rifled Challenger gun to the new 120mm L/55 and the DM53 ammunition plus the other improvements on the Leo2A6.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you have access to the actual armour penetrations of these weapons?

I'd suggest that in reality, as there is nothing which has the capability to withstand even the shorter barrelled 120mm, whether smoothbored or not, adding the extra length and hence extra MV is IMO a tad pointless.

As to the advantages of rifled over smoothbore or vice-a-versa, I'd hazard to suggest that the British are comfortable with the use of a rifled weapon - they feel it improves accuracy, as well as sealing around the round through the use of a driving band, perhaps they know something or believe something different to the rest of the defence community?

As has already been mentioned, HESH is not affected by the rifling, so therefore its accuracy is increased at longer range with its presence and a higher velocity is possible.

As to the supposedly superior performance of one vehicle over another - I remember when the Chieftain first introduced a laser rangefinder. I saw film (ah yes, that demon medium which so many distrust :eek: ) of trials between a Chieftain still fitted with a .50 cal RMG and one fitted with the new laser rangefinder. In the film, of the five engagements shown, two were won by the laser and two by the RMG and one was a draw, basically. The reason why the RMG did so well was because the crew were "veterans" whereas the laser trained crew were "green" with the laser.

Which is why "competitions" results can be misconstrued - in the Gulf, the Challenger proved it was more than a match for the enemy, which was all that was required.

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

[M Hofbauer]

PDF,

Leclerc is an excellent improvement over the AMX-30 (which the brits probably wouldn't even call a tank but a light reconnaisance asset); however - an autoloader with only 22 rounds of 8 types?

Mr "Beazley",

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, you have access to the actual armour penetrations of these weapons?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are confidential. If I told you i would have to kill you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd suggest that in reality, as there is nothing which has the capability to withstand even the shorter barrelled 120mm, whether smoothbored or not, adding the extra length and hence extra MV is IMO a tad pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

reminds me of the allied view in WW II that the 76mm would be the be-all end-all forever to deal with everything since it worked so well against everything when it was conceived...

IMO you are dangerously underestimating the capabilities of modern armor (one aspect where the Challenger II *really* shines bright!). actually, although the russian 125mm does suffer from accuracy, its sheer power is comparable. still, iraqui T-72s failed to penetrate M1A1s from the front in the Gulf War.

as to the rest of your world view that the Challenger is the best MBT since the Bob Semple and that rifled MBT guns are superior even though *everyone* else but the british designers think differently then I cannot help you further here, I suggest you try it over at the flat earth society

(it's noteworthy that noone else but the UK considers or uses the Challenger II, the Swedish even refused to accept one for their evaluation tests for their new MBT (only looking at M1A2, Leclerc and Leo2);

btw the following just in from Greece:

(quote)

Leopard wins Greek tank shoot-out

The winner of the Greek Main Battle Tank (MBT) competition is expected to be announced in August this year but results of competition trials obtained by Jane's Defence Weekly have placed the German-made Leopard 2A5 in pole position.

The first batch of MBTs will be for 250 vehicles plus variants. Between October and December 1998 six MBTs carried out extensive firepower and mobility trials in Greece manned by Greek Army crews. These were the French Giat Industries Leclerc; German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5 in latest Swedish Strv 122 configuration; Russian Omsk Machine Construction Plant T-80U; Ukrainian Malyshev Plant T-84; UK Vickers Defence Systems Challenger 2E; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.

Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19%

The Leopard 2A5 was the only one with a demonstrated deep fording capability, while the M1A2 had the best firing results during hunter/killer target engagements.

The German 1,500hp MTU EuroPowerPack was fitted in both the Leclerc and the Challenger 2E and these two vehicles had the best cruising range and lower fuel consumption.

According to JDW sources, the recommendation of the Greek Armour Directorate to the Council for Defence Planning and Programme was that the choice be limited to just two vehicles: the German Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A5; and the US General Dynamics Land Systems M1A2 Abrams.

In addition to the results of the operational and technical trials a number of other factors were taken into account, such as the total number of vehicles built, number of users, NATO interoperability and experience of the Greek Army with current German and US MBTs.

While these operational and technical trials will play an important part in the Greek decision-making process, other crucial factors include: the offset arrangements; Greek added value; and politics. Of the above four MBTs, three are currently taking part in the Turkish Land Forces Command MBT trials. These are the Leopard 2A6; Leclerc; and M1A2. Vickers Defence Systems decided to concentrate on just one market, Greece. (note: and failed miserably )

The first batch of 250 MBTs and 12 armoured recovery vehicles will be followed by a second batch of 400, with most of these expected to be manufactured in Greece.

(end quote)

(besides, while your view re. the Challenger II is almost as laughable and shows a similar lack of knowledge as do your previous statements, if we continue the topic of MBTs instead of refocussing on your original preposterous untrue Puppchen statement, this thread might get moved into the general forum by the powers that be)

[edited to add the greek tidbit]

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[Brian]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

basically I agree with your opinion on the "value" and realism of these

competitions, but I cannot help but comment that a comparison jumps to my

mind regarding the initial argument in this thread on whether or not the training

footage of orchestrated, rehearsed and set-up ARVE action are representative of

the vehicles' actual use in combat or not, and Mr Beazleys

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there migh also be a world of difference between how a "competition" is conducted and how an exercise for a training film is conducted. From my own experience, training films tend to be designed to show soldiers how things should be done, therefore if Kim stated he saw an AVRE deploy a fascine likedysplit, I have no reason to doubt him. Do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

regarding using the gunnery competitions as a means of comparing the vehicles

and the performances of the rules - why bother to lie, and why create artificial

rules?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps because its impossible to simulate battle conditions and if you have a "competition" you must have some means (other than perhaps survival) of scoring between the contestants to enable a "winner" and a "loser" to be proclaimed.

As the competition was between like tanks, rather than unlike tanks, as occured in the Gulf War, I think its rather like members, who play different positions, of the same football team competing against one another, rather than an opposing football team.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

the main problem with a rifled barrel is not the rotation caused in HEAT rounds

(this can be offset and today HEAT is not that much of an issue anymore

anyways), but the friction generated by the rifling, resulting in a lower Vo and

therefore lower AP.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmmmm, you appear to have forgotten the other component that spin imparts to a projectile - improved accuracy. In the case of HESH, this means a high MV can be attained and its more accurate at longer ranges, with the relatively high, arcing trajectory that HEAT has. The rifling is there for the secondary round, not the primary round. The problem of friction is overcome for the primary round APFSDS through the use of sliprings.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I have been unaware so far that these authors -who did a wide range of books-

should have made an authoritative book dedicated to the subject, but perhaps

you would disclose more about it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My copies are interstate at the moment but they are Hogg - German Artillery of World War Two, Chamberlain and Doyle - Anti-Tank Weapons, WWII Fact Files, US Army, German Army Handbook and also Weeks, Men Against Tanks. I'm going by memory here so could be wrong, I admit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I have yet to see these sources claim that the Puppchen was "as rare as rocking

horse ****". Mr Beazley btw has so far refused to give ANY facts regarding his

original preposterous claim.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps he was a tad over the top with his use of colourful language but again, all I can say is according to my sources, the claim was that it wasn't successful and wasn't widely used.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

although your statement is a bit sketchy, if I interpret it correctly than this is

nothing but your iteration of your opinion which is what we are arguing about.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right its my opinion - based upon the above sources. Your sources are? You have yet to actually name them, I believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

the PWK 8 H 63 ("PAW 600") was rare indeed, but that is beside the point

because the original statement pertained to the Puppchen not the PAW 600 (an

altogether vastly different weapon concept)(that said with the PAW you'ld have

had a much better argument, I have a total production number for the PAW 600

of 260 here, with the delivery of the first 81 in January 1945, and a documented

combat use of 105 by the 30. and 31. PzGrenRgt. Now, please don't take the

following as impolite are as offending, but if you do a search under my member

number and PWK as a key word then I am sure you will find an earlier article of

mine on this subject)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will do so but I am a bit mysterified as to why two Panzer Grenadier Regiments would have 105 towed anti-tank guns between them...

[RMC]

In all fairness to the Challenger series one must remember that it was not the product of a dedicated development program that had a clear idea of what the end result was supposed to be. The original Challengers were built for the Shah of Iran and never delivered. I forget the Farsi name they were to have.

Anyway the British Army bought them because they were there and because Vickers needed help. After the poor showings in CAT 87, it was realized that the Challenger was not in the same league as the other first-line Western MBTs. It was really just an uparmored, upengined Chieftain. It's firepower was just as good as the Leos, and M1s but it was still using Leo1 and M60 era fire control. It wasn't a "bad" tank, the others were just better.

So Challenger II was meant to improve on the failings of the Challenger and it appears to have done so within the basic limitations of the design. Rifling or no, the basic problem with the gun is still split ammo that is slower to load. And of course it is still slow compared to the Leos and M1s but it is a veritable race horse in British Army terms. When the original Challengers made it to the BAOR, they amazed the old tankers with their speed - relative to the crusty Chieftains.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

PDF,

Mr "Beazley",

reminds me of the allied view in WW II that the 76mm would be the be-all end-all forever to deal with everything since it worked so well against everything when it was conceived...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mmmm, perhaps you'd care to indicate which vehicles it won't penetrate which are in production today?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

IMO you are dangerously underestimating the capabilities of modern armor (one aspect where the Challenger II *really* shines bright!). actually, although the russian 125mm does suffer from accuracy, its sheer power is comparable. still, iraqui T-72s failed to penetrate M1A1s from the front in the Gulf War.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except the Iraqi vehicles were very much downgraded export versions, as was their ammunition - large quantities of which weren't even tungsten but rather plain steel penetrators. Its not surprising that when you team poor vehicles, crewed by unwilling conscripts for the most part, up against an opposition which has spent the last 50 years honing its abilities waiting for exactly the sort of battle the Iraqis provided them with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

as to the rest of your world view that the Challenger is the best MBT since the Bob Semple and that rifled MBT guns are superior even though *everyone* else but the british designers think differently then I cannot help you further here, I suggest you try it over at the flat earth society

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, its nice to know that some things never change - Mr.Slapdragon, Herr Hofbauer and a few others - why be polite when rudeness will do the same job, hey?

I did not claim that the Challenger was the best tank since the Bob Semple. Indeed, I made the point that it was adequate, no more.

I did not claim that rifled guns are superior either - merely that the British have a preference for them and perhaps they know something we don't?

Its obvious that you have been taking lessons from Mr.Slapdragon's school of debating.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

(it's noteworthy that noone else but the UK considers or uses the Challenger II, the Swedish even refused to accept one for their evaluation tests for their new MBT (only looking at M1A2, Leclerc and Leo2);

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Price perhaps? Political preferences? I have no idea why they refused the Challenger. Do you?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Of these six vehicles, out of a maximum possible operational and technical score of 100%, best performing were: Leopard 2A5, 78.65%; M1A2 Abrams, 72.21%; Leclerc, 72.03%; and Challenger, 2E 69.19%

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My, how interesting so there is a grand total of 9.46% difference between the winner and the loser - hardly the earth destroying revelation that its as super bad as you attempt to proclaim it to be.

As I've suggested all along - it is adequate, its got its problems but it has its advantages as well. It merely represents a different approach to the problem of the MBT.

You, however attempted to paint it as a disaster waiting to happen. Such hyperbole, Herr Hofbauer!

[Slapdragon]

An amazing dodge by Beazeley: Hof picthes a post full of facts, and Beaz just waves his hand in the air and ignores them. Can't loose the debate that way Beaz.

I am being too hard, since at least you have changed your sig and info screen after having that little bit of cowardice rubbed in your face by all and sundry.

I think I am going to help Beaz out a little if you don't mind Hof, since he is smoking a bit both from the booting you are giving him over the puppchen and the current Challenger thing.

Beaz, wild geticulation and word games does not suffice for a succesful argument of position. You must present a line of reasoning that is clear, supported by evidence, and compelling, and show that the point you do not believe in is lacking in some fundemental way by using facts to break down his or her argument. An ideal situation to do this in is when you hold different sides, thus making proving your point equal to proving against the other point. As is often the case though, you don't get a perfect congruency, so you have to do both to get your point across, or accept his point as able to coexist with yours.

Now you need to actually read what he writes. With the tanks he takes a route of tank adoptions and testing as his proof, quoting a source. You must return by impeaching his source or interpretation of the source, hopefully using facts, and then support your own view, again using facts. Now, he leaves himself open in 3 or 4 places, and you could have done a small amount of research and really done a good job of refutation, to which he would have to bolster his argument, but you chose to dodge his points and thus are out in the cold on this one.

I kind of like the Challengers, and think you could have come up with some good points to press, but instead your thinking process immediately sprung to the defense of the commonwealth without fact, figure, or concept. Hof chopped you down and even showed contempt for your dodging.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

An amazing dodge by Beazeley: Hof picthes a post full of facts, and Beaz just waves his hand in the air and ignores them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who ignores them? I in fact quoted from them, Mr.Slapdragon. Is this yet another example of your attempts to misrepresent what your opponent is saying?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Can't loose the debate that way Beaz.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unlike yourself, Mr.Slapdragon, I'm not now to "win" or "lose" anything. I make my points in the hopes of helping to come to a thesis which takes into account all factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I am being too hard, since at least you have changed your sig and info screen after having that little bit of cowardice rubbed in your face by all and sundry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, Mr.Slapdragon, I'm about to change things much more significantly than a mere few little references. It wasn't done in response to what you said, it was done in response to something someone else suggested, in order to dismount you from your high horse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think I am going to help Beaz out a little if you don't mind Hof, since he is smoking a bit both from the booting you are giving him over the puppchen and the current Challenger thing.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Am I? Funny, I cannot smell any smoke.

I can imagine how steamed up you must be at being the laughing stock of the entire BBS.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Beaz, wild geticulation and word games does not suffice for a succesful argument of position.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you mean "gesticulation", Mr.Slapdragon and I can assure you I am not moving my arms further than it takes to type this message.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You must present a line of reasoning that is clear, supported by evidence, and compelling, and show that the point you do not believe in is lacking in some fundemental way by using facts to break down his or her argument.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? I think the problem is that this is how you believe "debate" should be conducted, whereas I believe in discussion. Perhaps you should try it sometime? It can be fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

An ideal situation to do this in is when you hold different sides, thus making proving your point equal to proving against the other point. As is often the case though, you don't get a perfect congruency, so you have to do both to get your point across, or accept his point as able to coexist with yours.

[QB]

I think you need to address that last remark to Herr Hofbauer, Mr.Slapdragon. I am more than happy for him to hold his views. He feels however the need to try and destroy mine, for some reason.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Funny, I was under the impression, like you, he leapt in without considering what was said, as happens all too often here, I've noticed.

So, given up on the Funnies thread, Mr.Slapdragon?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope Beaz, he presented evidence. You quoted him, but never refuted him. You almost got somewhere with the discussion of the difference of the percentage, but then you just did not go the whole route and either look up how the number was arrived at, or throw the ball back into his court and get him to break the number down.

You see, and this is from basic statistics, the amount of the percentrage matters not, but how significant the gap is. While you were gesticulating, he slipped a percentage in on you, a slow easy ball that you did not even swing on even though it was way in the strike zone. Instead you chose to quote him, insult him, and then claim the percentage was too small to matter.

But you had absolutely no idea how the percentage was arrived at, and still jumped on it , a sign of ignorance. Assuming that the figure is based on quantitative measurements, and assuming these measures are balanced in a reasonable manner, then a series of tests comprehensive enough on the vehicles could result in tests that would make a 5% change represent an extremely significant finding. In other words, these Greeks could have their act together, could do the tests right, and could find that the bottom of the totem pole is really no place you want to be, while the better tanks clustered at the top are each not bad in their own way.

This opens Hof's data up to debate on the numbers. Were the numbers generated in some reasonable manner. Do they reflect battlefield performance. But until Hof comes back with the formula, we are stuck.

As for dodges, may I suggest that the whole engineering topic became to hot for you when Hof tried to pin you down on sources and books, and I on why overall setup time including surveying should not be considered in use of the funnies. You also never responded to ideas about just giving bridge and fascine in place ability and leaving go of the vehicles, since it may, through real research, come out that they do not fit in the scope of CM.

However, don't feel bad about having a problem with constructing useful arguments. In my undergraduate honors research class, one of the first things we do with st udents is break them of the habit of argument from opinion and retrain them in debate from supporting evidence. It is a difficult skill, and many of my students who have gone on to be NSA, Rhodes, and NAFH scholars have had a great deal of difficulty mastering the skills of evidence supported debate. Most students in my research class do master these skills, it just takes time and dedication.

Now, if changing the game is not your goal, but shooting the **** is, I would suggest you open the topic in the General Forum anbd say, "I want funnies, BTS do somefink" and then their would be no need to change from your current methods to adult debating skills.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Pacestick]

What I think is "funny" is that there are people that thought you may have been a rather portly politition. It got better, it then turned out there were people who knew you were not but were concerned you were pretending to be the said portly gentleman.

If you hear a knock on your door some Sunday morning and it turns out to be Jenny George and Cheryl Kernot they will not be there to convert you, be afraid.... very afraid

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pacestick:

What I think is "funny" is that there are people that thought you may have been a rather portly politition. It got better, it then turned out there were people who knew you were not but were concerned you were pretending to be the said portly gentleman.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty good, hey?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If you hear a knock on your door some Sunday morning and it turns out to be Jenny George and Cheryl Kernot they will not be there to convert you, be afraid.... very afraid<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nah, I'm holding out for 'tasha...

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Nope Beaz, he presented evidence.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which I acknowledged, Mr.Slapdragon.

So, what is your beef? That I refuse to play the role you assign to me? Sorry, I'm not the fool around here.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

As for dodges, may I suggest that the whole engineering topic became to hot for you when Hof tried to pin you down on sources and books, and I on why overall setup time including surveying should not be considered in use of the funnies.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe I posted quite a good link to "numbers", did you follow and read it, Mr.Slapdragon? One suspects not.

As for the "surveying" I did not suggest it should not be considered - you have made that claim. I have made the point that it is something seperate to the actual deployment of the vehicle. Indeed, I started an entirely new thread, on the topic of pre-battle recces, which is where it properly belongs.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You also never responded to ideas about just giving bridge and fascine in place ability and leaving go of the vehicles, since it may, through real research, come out that they do not fit in the scope of CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I must have missed those, Mr.Slapdragon and if I did, I apologise. I would suggest that as they were intended to be utilised in the assault, as a means of bypassing obstacles, they do very much fit into the "scope" of CMBO as I understand it.

BTS chose not to include obstacles or even water tiles narrower than 20 metres. I think that was foolish of them but its their choice.

I should also point out, that you have dodged every mention of the difference between historical accuracy versus your claims of a desire to create an "uberBritish" force/creature. Could it be that you are more concerned with oneupmanship than you are with historical accuracy?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

However, don't feel bad about having a problem with constructing useful arguments.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, your patronising doesn't work, Mr.Slapdragon. Its very obvious that I do construct very effective arguments which all too often confound you. The mere fact that you keep confusing and erecting strawmen, instead of talking truthfully about what I say, tends to indicate that it is yourself who has problems following or understanding other people's arguments.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In my undergraduate honors research class, one of the first things we do with st udents is break them of the habit of argument from opinion and retrain them in debate from supporting evidence. It is a difficult skill, and many of my students who have gone on to be NSA, Rhodes, and NAFH scholars have had a great deal of difficulty mastering the skills of evidence supported debate. Most students in my research class do master these skills, it just takes time and dedication.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if you also teach your students how to deliberately misrepresent their opponent's viewpoints? Oh, thats right! You teach journalism, don't you? No wonder thats what you do!

I find it amusing that for a person who likes to claim he argues so much from evidence, Mr.Slapdragon I've yet to see you refute what Brian has said about deployment times, which is quoted from a military manual.

Isn't it interesting how the US Army, which didn't have any funnies of their own, has a manual which is very different to that of the British Army which created them in the first place?

Could be a lesson in that.

[ 09-19-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

[John Kettler]

Since we're allegedly discussing Funnies here, I'd like to ask if some kind soul could supply some information on the use of Canal Defence Lights (CDLs) in combat. It's my understanding that they were fitted with some flicker apparatus and were used to blind the enemy during night attacks.

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

John,

there was a thread about the CDLs about a week ago. If your search is working try that. I'll have a go too, and post the link if I can get it to work.

Jon