NationStates Jolt Archive

Problems stall Pentagon’s new fighting vehicle
Costly amphibious craft breaks down often, leaks

After 10 years and $1.7 billion, this is what the Marines Corps got for its investment in a new amphibious vehicle: A craft that breaks down about an average of once every 4 1/2 hours, leaks and sometimes veers off course.

And for that, the contractor, General Dynamics of Falls Church, received $80 million in bonuses.

The amphibious vehicle, which can be launched from a ship and then driven on land, is so unreliable that the Pentagon is ditching plans to begin building the first of more than 1,000 and wants to start over with seven new prototypes, which will take nearly two years to deliver, at a cost of $22 million each.

The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is one of the Pentagon's largest weapons programs and exemplifies the agency's struggle to afford a cadre of new mega-systems that are larger and more complex, but also more trouble, than their predecessors.

Despite reforms meant to rein in costs, it is not unusual for weapons programs to go 20 to 50 percent over budget, the Government Accountability Office recently found. Among the offenders is the Army's sprawling modernization program, which aims to update everything from tanks to drones and is now expected to cost $160 billion, up from $90 billion, and a Lockheed Martin missile-warning satellite program, which is projected to cost more than $10 billion, up from $4 billion.

The Marines' troubled program is on a collision course with critics wary of its growing price tag and who wonder about the utility of an amphibious vehicle meant to storm beaches in a way the military hasn't done for decades, and at a time when soldiers are consumed with urban warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan.

‘We were disappointed’
The Marines, though, have not been dissuaded by the vehicle's poor showing in tests, as such fits and starts are common in military development programs.

"We were disappointed. We weren't shocked," program manager Col. John Bryant said.

The cost of the amphibious vehicle effort has increased 50 percent, to about $12 billion from $8 billion, with another cost bump projected after the program is relaunched.

The overruns are eating away at the Pentagon's buying power but not its appetite. The amount the Pentagon plans to spend on major weapons systems has doubled during the past five years, to $1.4 trillion from $700 billion, according to the GAO.

"I would never state, in an enterprise this large, that we ever have it all under control," Kenneth Krieg, the Pentagon's acquisition chief, said in a December interview. "I think we're on a good path and only performance will prove that, and that's what we got to do."

When it was launched in 1996, the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle was promoted as an example of acquisition reform as hundreds of General Dynamics and Marine Corps officials moved into the same 62,000-square-foot office building in Woodbridge to run the program, in hopes of saving time and money. The program's efforts to keep maintenance costs low won plaudits from Defense leaders and twice earned the program the Pentagon's highest acquisition award, in 1997 and 1999. In 2001, the program collected an innovation award for developing a system to keep the craft's internal components from overheating, a technology that has been adopted for other weapons.

MSNBC news

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

K.I.S.S. ffs!

K.I.S.S. ffs!

http://image.listen.com/img/356x237/2/0/7/0/650702_356x237.jpg?

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

There's another way of looking at this failure. Speaking from the point of view of a contractor to the government, it's damned hard to keep up with all the government requirements. They don't just specify that the system should work, but that it be labeled and painted IAW MIL-STD-1234, that systems are supported ad infinitum, and so on. And then, they don't allow for mistakes in developing new technology by paying for the increased schedule and budget that's required to finally get it right.

Still, our stuff is better than their stuff.

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

Does the fact that every single time Western systems have tangled with Soviet/Russian systems, the Western systems have won mean anything to you?

Beyond that, I have no idea why you've listed the A-10 as a failure, by all accounts, it's been an excellent, relatively inexpensive aircraft in it's role.

over-complicated, modern flops such as... the A-10 Thunderbolt II
:(

Remember the U.S. military has to have the biggest, best, and most advanced of everything. This approach sometimes works. The new striker wheeled combat vechile is considered by our troops the best thing since sliced bread. The problem is that a lot of times this approach does not work. look at the M2 Bradly. The M2 is a classic example of designed by committee. The M2 does not carry enough troops and it is meat to any joker carrying an RPG-7.

There's another way of looking at this failure. Speaking from the point of view of a contractor to the government, it's damned hard to keep up with all the government requirements. They don't just specify that the system should work, but that it be labeled and painted IAW MIL-STD-1234, that systems are supported ad infinitum, and so on. And then, they don't allow for mistakes in developing new technology by paying for the increased schedule and budget that's required to finally get it right.

Still, our stuff is better than their stuff.

You are definitely in the ball park there.

Its not only about the changes in requirements that get handed to you in mid programme but also the pork and lobbying of the pols who 'control' the spending and the oversight of these projects.

The same goes for civilian projects run by government. For some companies its pretty much a license to print money (see Haliburton, Kellog Rice, Blackwater etc etc).

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?There's one inherent flaw with the "stuff that works" thing: You don't know what works until it's developed. In the end, the only thing that really speaks out against the landing craft itself is that it hasn't been needed in decades. But a military isn't just there to be used, it's also a deterrent. Not performing beach assaults in recent times isn't a good argument against being ready to do so. Best example for the deterrent aspect of weaponry are nuclear weapons: We have them so we don't have to use them.

Does the fact that every single time Western systems have tangled with Soviet/Russian systems, the Western systems have won mean anything to you?

Beyond that, I have no idea why you've listed the A-10 as a failure, by all accounts, it's been an excellent, relatively inexpensive aircraft in it's role.

Actually, you're right, the A-10 is a perfectly capable aircraft. I don't know why I cited that. Probably still thinking about those friendly fire incidents again. The only problem is it's limited avionics package.

But you have to agree that weapons development spending is severely extortionate, and increasingly more projects are becoming flops upon completion, whether it be too lightly armored, susceptible to major break-downs, not suitable for terrain, or simply not suitable for modern war.

Take this new EFV in the article. When was the last time the US amphibiously assaulted a position in a war? Omaha beach?

True.

The problem is the military practically has unlimited spending power and are willing to throw tons money at any problems that arise and the companies vying for contracts know it.

There's one inherent flaw with the "stuff that works" thing: You don't know what works until it's developed. In the end, the only thing that really speaks out against the landing craft itself is that it hasn't been needed in decades. But a military isn't just there to be used, it's also a deterrent. Not performing beach assaults in recent times isn't a good argument against being ready to do so. Best example for the deterrent aspect of weaponry are nuclear weapons: We have them so we don't have to use them.

Good point there. But can you seriously consider any realistic scenario where a beach landing would be credible par invading Europe?

Good point there. But can you seriously consider any realistic scenario where a beach landing would be credible par invading Europe?

Last time I checked, China and North Korea still have beaches.

Actually, you're right, the A-10 is a perfectly capable aircraft. I don't know why I cited that. Probably still thinking about those friendly fire incidents again. The only problem is it's limited avionics package.

The A-10 has no need of a hyper-sophisticated avionics package, it's a low-speed ground assault aircraft, designed especially to bust armored vehicles with some degree of precision.

But you have to agree that weapons development spending is severely extortionate, and increasingly more projects are becoming flops upon completion, whether it be too lightly armored, susceptible to major break-downs, not suitable for terrain, or simply not suitable for modern war.

Take this new EFV in the article. When was the last time the US amphibiously assaulted a position in a war? Omaha beach?

There were preparations to launch an amphibious assault during Gulf War I, but because of various tactical factors the US decided to go for the left hook, but keep the amphibious assault as a credible threat to force the Iraqi forces to remain near the beaches rather than moving to counter the armored thrust.

All the same, too much money is spent on weapons development, but that's because we're afraid of China.

Last time I checked, China and North Korea still have beaches.

Last time I checked, an invasion of either China or N. Korea = Complete and total decimation

Last time I checked, China and North Korea still have beaches.

And the US and they both have far better technology such that an amphibious assault is not practical.

Actually, you're right, the A-10 is a perfectly capable aircraft. I don't know why I cited that. Probably still thinking about those friendly fire incidents again. The only problem is it's limited avionics package.

But you have to agree that weapons development spending is severely extortionate, and increasingly more projects are becoming flops upon completion, whether it be too lightly armored, susceptible to major break-downs, not suitable for terrain, or simply not suitable for modern war.

Take this new EFV in the article. When was the last time the US amphibiously assaulted a position in a war? Omaha beach?

Somalia....

Somalia....

Forgive my ignorance please, but what about it?

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

There's a lot more politics working here than over there. And the whole concept of "safety features" wasn't really as important in the U.S.S.R. There was a lot more focus on the bottom line.
And I'd also like to point out that while they had more efficiency in their process...Their weaponery is now sitting in harbors and warehouses rusting or being sold on the blackmarket and their soldiers have been known to go months without receiving pay.

Forgive my ignorance please, but what about it?

Operation Restore Hope.

There's a lot more politics working here than over there. And the whole concept of "safety features" wasn't really as important in the U.S.S.R. There was a lot more focus on the bottom line.
And I'd also like to point out that while they had more efficiency in their process...Their weaponery is now sitting in harbors and warehouses rusting or being sold on the blackmarket and their soldiers have been known to go months without receiving pay.

I'll agree with you that the new Russian Federation is extremely negligent when it comes to their military nowadays, but back in the Soviet-era at least they could produce systems that were reliable, cost-effective and still on par with their western counterparts. If the present US Industrial-Miltary Complex adopted more ideas from the former USSR I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a decrease in the extortionate Pentagon budget.

techno-chauvinistic?

I'll agree with you that the new Russian Federation is extremely negligent when it comes to their military nowadays, but back in the Soviet-era at least they could produce systems that were reliable, cost-effective and still on par with their western counterparts. If the present US Industrial-Miltary Complex adopted more ideas from the former USSR I wouldn't be surprised if you saw a decrease in the extortionate Pentagon budget.

You are joking right? Please give me some examples where Sov systems equaled or out performed western systems....

You are joking right? Please give me some examples where Sov systems equaled or out performed western systems....

How about the AK-47 vs. the M-16A1 Assault rifles?

How about the AK-47 vs. the M-16A1 Assault rifles?

Metrics? The onus is on you...

Does the fact that every single time Western systems have tangled with Soviet/Russian systems, the Western systems have won mean anything to you?

Explain why GI's in Vietnam regularly dumped the M16A1s in exchange for captured AK-47s please.

Could it be because the first issue M16A1s had a tendency to jam at the most inopportune times? Like when you were being shot at maybe?

US approach to building things: Expensive, sophisticated, can kill you from a distance, but fragile.

Soviet approach to building things: Cheap, rugged, not very accurate all the time, not really high performance, but will get the job done.

Head on head, US equipment outperforms Soviet equipment. Generally, but not universally. In environmental durability, Soviet equipment outlasts US equipment.

And I'd also like to point out that while they had more efficiency in their process...Their weaponery is now sitting in harbors and warehouses rusting or being sold on the blackmarket and their soldiers have been known to go months without receiving pay.

There is no more Soviet Union. That aside, their political state says nothing about their engineering principles and does not affect comparisons of that sort.

techno-chauvinistic?

Yes. Techno-chauvinism. Where people hold the undeterred belief that technologically-powered and overly-complicated solutions are always better than more cost-effective, tried, proved solutions.

Imagine two different factions. Each has guns.

Faction A are equipped with guns that are technologically more advanced than Faction B's guns, with laser sights, special magazines, more complicated working parts etc. that is superior than Faction B's weapons altogether. They are expensive to produce.

Faction B has technologically inferior weapons. Less accurate sights, modular, unadvanced ammunition etc. They are relatively inexpensive.

Faction A and B have a war.

A's weapons are more effective at killing B's, but since they're more complicated, more things can go wrong with them. They often jam easily, not respond well to certain terrain conditions such as sand, heat, cold etc. They need special technicians to repair these complicated systems, rather than be able to be fixed by the troops in the field themselves. Since they are expensive as well, they might not be able to field as many of these weapons eventually.

B faction however have inexpensive, uncomplicated weaponry that is less prone to so many problems, are modular and easy to repair, and since they are inexpensive, can be fielded in a greater number than their A counterpart.

B seems to have the advantage in the long run correct?

There is no more Soviet Union. That aside, their political state says nothing about their engineering principles and does not affect comparisons of that sort.

:confused: When did that happen...?

Actually, I know. Someone mentioned the cold-war weapons in Russia.

Metrics? The onus is on you...
Depending on cartridges? Meh. Some may prefer fragmentation or tumbling, but give me raw momentum/stopping power any day. Also, the 7.62mm Bloc cartridge is still the most common round out there, even if the number of AKs is down due to stupid bleeding-heart UN "decommissioning" of Third World AKs that could instead be legitimately sold to those armies needing cheap and effective rifles.
Also, the better 5.56mm rifles nowadays; the FNC, G-36, CR-21 Vektor, IMI Galil and Tavor, &c. all use derivatives of the Kalashnikov action. It's proven to be vastly superior to the AR-15/AR-18 actions' reliability standards in extreme conditions. This is because, despite the western troops being on the winning side in Cold War brushfires, it was NOT uncommon to see those soldiers using supposed "war trophies" in preference to their standard-issue weapons because of the Soviet gear's simple, idiot-proof reliability.

Yes. Techno-chauvinism. Where people hold the undeterred belief that technologically-powered and overly-complicated solutions are always better than more cost-effective, tried, proved solutions.

Imagine two different factions. Each has guns.

Faction A are equipped with guns that are technologically more advanced than Faction B's guns, with laser sights, special magazines, more complicated working parts etc. that is superior than Faction B's weapons altogether. They are expensive to produce.

Faction B has technologically inferior weapons. Less accurate sights, modular, unadvanced ammunition etc. They are relatively inexpensive.

Faction A and B have a war.

A's weapons are more effective at killing B's, but since they're more complicated, more things can go wrong with them. They often jam easily, not respond well to certain terrain conditions such as sand, heat, cold etc. They need special technicians to repair these complicated systems, rather than be able to be fixed by the troops in the field themselves. Since they are expensive as well, they might not be able to field as many of these weapons eventually.

B faction however have inexpensive, uncomplicated weaponry that is less prone to so many problems, are modular and easy to repair, and since they are inexpensive, can be fielded in a greater number than their A counterpart.

B seems to have the advantage in the long run correct?
Have you never played Civilization? There is nothing more satisfying than showing up at some hut city with your mech. infantry and...*STOMP* Goodbye little spear chuckers.:D

Explain why GI's in Vietnam regularly dumped the M16A1s in exchange for captured AK-47s please.


Could it be because the first issue M16A1s had a tendency to jam at the most inopportune times? Like when you were being shot at maybe?

In Vietnam there was a jamming problem that had to do with the type of powder that was being used in the cartridges for the M16. After the US switched the powder type the jamming problem went away.

US approach to building things: Expensive, sophisticated, can kill you from a distance, but fragile.

Soviet approach to building things: Cheap, rugged, not very accurate all the time, not really high performance, but will get the job done.

Head on head, US equipment outperforms Soviet equipment. Generally, but not universally. In environmental durability, Soviet equipment outlasts US equipment.

Of course, US supply lines allow for weapons to reach units in every single corner of the world, so this is not a problem.

Beyond that, currently the United States makes heavy use of the M-16's smaller cousin, the M4 Carbine is 1.3 kilos lighter (loaded) than the AK-47. The M16 is about half a kilo lighter than the AK-47. Weapons weight is a vitally important factor in user endurance.

Have you never played Civilization? There is nothing more satisfying than showing up at some hut city with your mech. infantry and...*STOMP* Goodbye little spear chuckers.:D

Have you ever seen Return of the Jedi? Ewoks PWN. Stormtroopers.

Putting that aside what did you think of my analogy? Disagree?

Putting that aside what did you think of my example?

It doesn't take into account the other relevant factors. The modern-weapons nation will most likely have developed support and infrastructure supply lines, to be able to support their troops at the front with, so that even if the advanced weapons systems break down, they'll have ready access to new ones. The advanced nation is more likely to have a developed air force and artillery corp. Sure, the enemy may be able to put more infantry on the ground, but they'll be obliterated in a flashing wall of steel (Think: PRC offensives in late Korean War, where the US killed tens of thousands of PRC soldiers with artillery and air power.)

This story somehow reminds me of the urban legend about the infamous NASA ballpoint pen to use in space, supposedly developed for $1.5 million, whereas the Russians simply used a $0.05 pencil.

That aside, it's preposterous how much money is blown on behalf of "security measures" and the military that could serve a much better purpose spent elsewhere.

Have you never played Civilization? There is nothing more satisfying than showing up at some hut city with your mech. infantry and...*STOMP* Goodbye little spear chuckers.:D

Yeah, but in real life the spear chuckers just steal weapons off of your dead and steadily become better at ambushing you.

Have you ever seen Return of the Jedi? Ewoks PWN. Stormtroopers.

Putting that aside what did you think of my analogy? Disagree?

I don't think you accounted for the fact that the reason they have better technology was that they could afford it. So that being said, they can also afford to buy more. I agree that they would have to worry about breaking in the field, but they also have better training and when they work, the weapons are better. I think that more than makes up for it.

Although the way the U.S. got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese gives a lot of credence to the advantage of home turf.

It doesn't take into account the other relevant factors. The modern-weapons nation will most likely have developed support and infrastructure supply lines, to be able to support their troops at the front with, so that even if the advanced weapons systems break down, they'll have ready access to new ones. The advanced nation is more likely to have a developed air force and artillery corp. Sure, the enemy may be able to put more infantry on the ground, but they'll be obliterated in a flashing wall of steel (Think: PRC offensives in late Korean War, where the US killed tens of thousands of PRC soldiers with artillery and air power.)

Modern North Korea has relatively obsolete Cold War weapon systems from the former Soviet Union that can easily fight total and complete war with the United States, with decimating casualties. North Korea also has the fourth largest military, with the highest percentage of fully-trained and equipped enlisted citizens.

One example:
North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

M1 Abrams: $2,350,000

A obsolete T-62 doesn't have that price tag.

Yes. Techno-chauvinism. Where people hold the undeterred belief that technologically-powered and overly-complicated solutions are always better than more cost-effective, tried, proved solutions.

Imagine two different factions. Each has guns.

Faction A are equipped with guns that are technologically more advanced than Faction B's guns, with laser sights, special magazines, more complicated working parts etc. that is superior than Faction B's weapons altogether. They are expensive to produce.

Faction B has technologically inferior weapons. Less accurate sights, modular, unadvanced ammunition etc. They are relatively inexpensive.

Faction A and B have a war.

A's weapons are more effective at killing B's, but since they're more complicated, more things can go wrong with them. They often jam easily, not respond well to certain terrain conditions such as sand, heat, cold etc. They need special technicians to repair these complicated systems, rather than be able to be fixed by the troops in the field themselves. Since they are expensive as well, they might not be able to field as many of these weapons eventually.

B faction however have inexpensive, uncomplicated weaponry that is less prone to so many problems, are modular and easy to repair, and since they are inexpensive, can be fielded in a greater number than their A counterpart.

B seems to have the advantage in the long run correct?

thanks for the definition, despite studying this stuff its not a term i've ever heard before. your analogy is a good one, but skewed slightly in favour of side B.

i recall hearing that when the AK47 inventor was taken for a tour of a western rifle plant, he commented "you must have very clever soldiers". weapons are a package and the training and tactics of their operator are often just as important as whatever there relative techinical merits. with proper training and tactics, i feel side A would hold the advantage.

Depending on cartridges? Meh. Some may prefer fragmentation or tumbling, but give me raw momentum/stopping power any day. Also, the 7.62mm Bloc cartridge is still the most common round out there, even if the number of AKs is down due to stupid bleeding-heart UN "decommissioning" of Third World AKs that could instead be legitimately sold to those armies needing cheap and effective rifles.
Also, the better 5.56mm rifles nowadays; the FNC, G-36, CR-21 Vektor, IMI Galil and Tavor, &c. all use derivatives of the Kalashnikov action. It's proven to be vastly superior to the AR-15/AR-18 actions' reliability standards in extreme conditions. This is because, despite the western troops being on the winning side in Cold War brushfires, it was NOT uncommon to see those soldiers using supposed "war trophies" in preference to their standard-issue weapons because of the Soviet gear's simple, idiot-proof reliability.

Actually in this particular case the OP is correct. However I did not say he was wrong. I asked for metrics..proof of some kind.

Its when you go up the scale to higher techs that the differences are marked for example the F-15 v Mig 25. The kill ratios that the Israelis managed make for stunning reading. With regards to the Mig 25 the Israelis shot down 7 for the loss of none. They even managed to kill a fair few Mig 29's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle

thanks for the definition, despite studying this stuff its not a term i've ever heard before. your analogy is a good one, but skewed slightly in favour of side B.

i recall hearing that when the AK47 inventor was taken for a tour of a western rifle plant, he commented "you must have very clever soldiers". weapons are a package and the training and tactics of their operator are often just as important as whatever there relative techinical merits. with proper training and tactics, i feel side A would hold the advantage.

I think when he said, "You must have very clever soldiers", I think he was commenting on how clever they would have to be to understand how their weapon works to intimately so they could make field repairs to their weapons, like Soviet, Chinese, Korean soldiers and Taliban fighters could with their AK's.


Soviet weapons where so idiot-proof children could dissassemble and repair AK's.
M16A1's on the other hand were incredibly complicated on the other hand. It would take a lot of training to be able to repair them in the field. You actually needed a pencil in order to correct the sight of a M16A1 whenever you finished firing a burst.

Modern British SA80 Assault rifles are absolutely impossible to repair in the field. You can't get into the casing very easily besides smashing the gun apart on the ground for a start, which isn't very hard since they're so fragile in the first place.

If the Army wants amphibious landing craft, they should just buy a bunch of these:
http://www.ursispaltenstein.ch/blog//images/uploads_1/amphibious_car.jpg
cost a lot less and looks far cooler.

They even do a bullet-resistant suv:
http://www.terrawind.com/exnewfrontweb.jpg
http://www.terrawind.com/index.html

How is it someone can make what the Army wants for less and make it reliable, whereas the army contractor spends millions, makes a fubar of it, delivers nothing and gets a bonus for doing so?

If the Army wants amphibious landing craft, they should just buy a bunch of these:
http://www.ursispaltenstein.ch/blog//images/uploads_1/amphibious_car.jpg
cost a lot less and looks far cooler.

They even do a bullet-resistant suv:
http://www.terrawind.com/exnewfrontweb.jpg
http://www.terrawind.com/index.html

How is it someone can make what the Army wants for less and make it reliable, whereas the army contractor spends millions, makes a fubar of it, delivers nothing and gets a bonus for doing so?

It's all about spreading pork and inflated budgets.

How is it someone can make what the Army wants for less and make it reliable, whereas the army contractor spends millions, makes a fubar of it, delivers nothing and gets a bonus for doing so?

The modern Military-Industrial complex boils down to this:

Politician: I buy your gun.
Contractor: I vote for you. And so do my employees.

The fact that the gun happens to be cheap-ass and doesn't work mean nothing to our hapless politician.

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

Of course. Soviet military hardware, being usually rougher and simpler, also works better in battlefield condition. But sometimes it is also technologically superior. Some US and western weapon systems are quite backward.
Take the M1 Abrams. Gas turbine with a helluva IR signature. And I don't think that all M1s are equipped with an autoloader. Compare it to a T-90, who's got autoloader, remotely-operated AA gun, a 125mm main gun that can fire also guided projectiles like the Refleks, the Arena system, and also has a smaller shape, a Diesel engine, and higher mobility.
Or take the AA-11 and the AA-12 missiles. That's air dominance.

But... as for the A-10... ok, it is inferior its counterpart (the Sukhoj Su-25), but it was a good plane. The real problem with the A-10 is that is meant to attack hordes of undefended tanks - while any russian armoured battallion has at least a couple of Shilka or Tungushka, when not even Arena systems.
So the main problem with western (and expecially US) military hardware is the military doctrine behind it, not the hardware per se. You might take a look at the ridiculous "Hyperwar" doctrine, see www.fas.org ... then think what is gonna happen if the US isn't confronting a 3rd world country, but a full-scale industrial/military power like Russia, China or Germany. US would have to use nukes or lose.

:confused: When did that happen...?


Some 20 odd years ago IIRC.

Some 20 odd years ago IIRC.

Uh...Thanks....

I think when he said, "You must have very clever soldiers", I think he was commenting on how clever they would have to be to understand how their weapon works to intimately so they could make field repairs to their weapons, like Soviet, Chinese, Korean soldiers and Taliban fighters could with their AK's.

Modern British SA80 Assault rifles are absolutely impossible to repair in the field. You can't get into the casing very easily besides smashing the gun apart on the ground for a start, which isn't very hard since they're so fragile in the first place.

Soviet weapons where so idiot-proof children could dissassemble and repair AK's.
M16A1's on the other hand were incredibly complicated on the other hand. It would take a lot of training to be able to repair them in the field. You actually needed a pencil in order to correct the sight of a M16A1 whenever you finished firing a burst.

Modern British SA80 Assault rifles are absolutely impossible to repair in the field. You can't get into the casing very easily besides smashing the gun apart on the ground for a start, which isn't very hard since they're so fragile in the first place.

Well you are making some good points and pretty valid. However when you are looking at Sov weapons v West you are looking at systems developed for battlefields...not asymmetric/4G warfare.

If you are using 'traditional battlefield' systems and tactics/strategy against asymmetric systems the latter will eventually win by grind the opposition to a halt. History has shown this time and time again.

The bullpup design was one of the worst UK procurement decisions outside of Nimrod...

In Vietnam there was a jamming problem that had to do with the type of powder that was being used in the cartridges for the M16. After the US switched the powder type the jamming problem went away.

Of course, this was after numerous deaths due to weapons jams. Either way, it disproves the principle that US equipment overshadows Soviet equipment.


Of course, US supply lines allow for weapons to reach units in every single corner of the world, so this is not a problem.

Of course, this leads to embarrassing problems. Like for example, the US armed forces having a shortage of working vehicles because they keep breaking down in Iraq faster than they can be repaired. Soviet equipment seems to have a better environmental shelf life, thus needing less time in the repair bay.

Having good supply lines and advanced tech doesn't mean much when it becomes a maintenance nightmare. It just means the total number of equipment having downtime increases exponentially.

currently the United States makes heavy use of the M-16's smaller cousin, the M4 Carbine is 1.3 kilos lighter (loaded) than the AK-47. The M16 is about half a kilo lighter than the AK-47. Weapons weight is a vitally important factor in user endurance.

Yep, but Russia also is switching to a smaller-calibre AK (can't remember the number, however the calibre is less than 6mm instead of the classical Warsaw Pact 7,62 dextrogyre).

Have you never played Civilization? There is nothing more satisfying than showing up at some hut city with your mech. infantry and...*STOMP* Goodbye little spear chuckers.:D

But at the same time, I have lost count of the number of times my attack helicopters were downed by archers. Or tanks defeated by club wielding barbarians. Or battleships sunk by galleons.

That was what I hated about Civilization.

There's one inherent flaw with the "stuff that works" thing: You don't know what works until it's developed.

Shush, don't let your sensible comments get in the way of the silly, uninformed bashing of the US military and the defense industry.

Actually, you're right, the A-10 is a perfectly capable aircraft. I don't know why I cited that. Probably still thinking about those friendly fire incidents again. The only problem is it's limited avionics package.

But you have to agree that weapons development spending is severely extortionate, and increasingly more projects are becoming flops upon completion, whether it be too lightly armored, susceptible to major break-downs, not suitable for terrain, or simply not suitable for modern war.

Take this new EFV in the article. When was the last time the US amphibiously assaulted a position in a war? Omaha beach?

i believe amphibious landings were carried out in panama (or grenada) and in somalia. there might have been one or two during bosnia, but i'm leaning towards 'not.' the truth is, there are a lot of countries accessible by water, and therefore beach landings are credible strategies. remember that the navy & marines are usually the first to fight and last to leave (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Enduring Freedom, Enduring Deployment[Gulf War II]).

I think when he said, "You must have very clever soldiers", I think he was commenting on how clever they would have to be to understand how their weapon works to intimately so they could make field repairs to their weapons, like Soviet, Chinese, Korean soldiers and Taliban fighters could with their AK's.

i accept its a valid point, the thing is though, we do.

Well you are making some good points and pretty valid. However when you are looking at Sov weapons v West you are looking at systems developed for battlefields...not asymmetric/4G warfare.

If you are using 'traditional battlefield' systems and tactics/strategy against asymmetric systems the latter will eventually win by grind the opposition to a halt. History has shown this time and time again.

The bullpup design was one of the worst UK procurement decisions outside of Nimrod...

First of all, thank you. I appreciate your good debating manner. And thanks for agreeing with me on the SA80.
Second of all, you have a point regarding asymmetric warfare. Traditional battlefield tactics vs. assymetric tactics nowadays fall towards assymetric. A perfect example of this is in Iraq.

The insurgents within Iraq use assymetric tactics against coalition troops who are also using more assymetrically aligned tactics. However, the insurgents are using Soviet hardware such as the AK-47/74 and RPG-7's and former Iraqi Soviet-made tanks to a lesser extent. Compare this to the coalition SA80 and M16 type firearms and numerous expensive and unneccesary vehicles such as the Thunderbolt. Insurgents are easily supplied with these plentiful firearms and do not require the advanced weaponry systems employed by the US. They can repair these easily, and RPG-7's have consistently shown their effectiveness at taking down helicopters and armored vehicles.

But at the same time, I have lost count of the number of times my attack helicopters were downed by archers. Or tanks defeated by club wielding barbarians. Or battleships sunk by galleons.

That was what I hated about Civilization.

Civ II they weighted things. That didn't happen so much. That's actually the one I played.

First of all, thank you. I appreciate your good debating manner. And thanks for agreeing with me on the SA80.
Second of all, you have a point regarding asymmetric warfare. Traditional battlefield tactics vs. assymetric tactics nowadays fall towards assymetric. A perfect example of this is in Iraq.

The insurgents within Iraq use assymetric tactics against coalition troops who are also using more assymetrically aligned tactics. However, the insurgents are using Soviet hardware such as the AK-47/74 and RPG-7's and former Iraqi Soviet-made tanks to a lesser extent. Compare this to the coalition SA80 and M16 type firearms and numerous expensive and unneccesary vehicles such as the Thunderbolt. Insurgents are easily supplied with these plentiful firearms and do not require the advanced weaponry systems employed by the US. They can repair these easily, and RPG-7's have consistently shown their effectiveness at taking down helicopters and armored vehicles.

I think there is a better example than Iraq.

The last incursion of Israel into the Leb. That is a classic example of modifying your tactics to your weapons against a superior force.

Still, our stuff is better than their stuff.

There's a good quote from the movie Tremors 2

"When you need it, and don't have it...you'll sing a different tune."

When was the last time the US amphibiously assaulted a position in a war? Omaha beach?

Seems like everyone forgets Inchon...probably because of that godawful movie. :p

Take the M1 Abrams. Gas turbine with a helluva IR signature. And I don't think that all M1s are equipped with an autoloader. Compare it to a T-90, who's got autoloader, remotely-operated AA gun, a 125mm main gun that can fire also guided projectiles like the Refleks, the Arena system, and also has a smaller shape, a Diesel engine, and higher mobility.

Are you comparing M1's to T-90's?

Why not the M1-A2? That would be more realistic. If you want to compare the original M1 to something, it would most likely be the T-72.

Also, I'd rather have a human loader than an auto-loader any day.

A hit that kills a human loader likely kills the whole crew...the tank was dead anyways. A hit that might do nothing to a tank with a human crew could jar or damage components of the auto-loader, making the tank tactically useless until it can be repaired.

That and I know of no appreciable difference in loading speed in combat conditions.

Of course, this was after numerous deaths due to weapons jams. Either way, it disproves the principle that US equipment overshadows Soviet equipment.

The only concrete example presented so far is the AK over the M-16.

Until you get a few more notches on that stock, I'd say nothing is "disproven".

The only concrete example presented so far is the AK over the M-16.

Until you get a few more notches on that stock, I'd say nothing is "disproven".

How about my earlier example comparing the N Korean T-62 to the M1? Doesn't look like many have touched that.

I think there is a better example than Iraq.

The last incursion of Israel into the Leb. That is a classic example of modifying your tactics to your weapons against a superior force.

Completely true. I like to think that Israel's latest excursion into Lebanon is in essence their Iraq. Except this time the UN and the Israeli people managed to get them to pull out.

i believe amphibious landings were carried out in panama (or grenada) and in somalia. there might have been one or two during bosnia, but i'm leaning towards 'not.' the truth is, there are a lot of countries accessible by water, and therefore beach landings are credible strategies. remember that the navy & marines are usually the first to fight and last to leave (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Enduring Freedom, Enduring Deployment[Gulf War II]).

A large part of the strategy in Desert Storm was to have the 2nd MarDiv in the Persian Gulf as a feint. What was the deception? The 'obsolete' amphibious assault, of course. Did it work? Absolutely. It pulled so many of Sadam's troops to the coast and by the time the invasion started from Kuwait, it was too late to redeploy them.

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

Umm...since when is the A-10 a "flop"? You do realize it's one of the most significant and reliable ground support aircraft in the world...

Of course. Soviet military hardware, being usually rougher and simpler, also works better in battlefield condition. But sometimes it is also technologically superior. Some US and western weapon systems are quite backward.
Take the M1 Abrams. Gas turbine with a helluva IR signature. And I don't think that all M1s are equipped with an autoloader. Compare it to a T-90, who's got autoloader, remotely-operated AA gun, a 125mm main gun that can fire also guided projectiles like the Refleks, the Arena system, and also has a smaller shape, a Diesel engine, and higher mobility.


On the inverse, the Gas turbine engine on the M1 also gives it a top speed 7 km/h faster than the T-90, it has a range that surpasses the T-90 by nearly 100 km, the lack of the autoloader permits for a higher rate of fire (the increased size of the M1 permits for the inclusion of a manual loader, thus a higher rate of fire) and manual AA guns are essentially worthless against Jets, or helicopters equipped with the ability to fire from hiding.

The German Leopard II, equipped with the Rheinmetall L55 also makes use of a manual loading system, as per the higher rate of fire. As it stands, it seems probable that the US will upgrade the M1 with the Rheinmetall L55, from the existing Rheinmetall L44 that is used by the M1.

Let's not forget that the T-90 decreases size by sacrificing crew safety, by storing ammunition in the same compartment as the crew, whereas western tanks store ammo in separate compartments with blowaway panels.

I'll be interested in this new "Black Panther" thing the South Koreans are developing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Black_Panther

:(

Umm...since when is the A-10 a "flop"? You do realize it's one of the most significant and reliable ground support aircraft in the world..

Indeed, indeed. I was with the OPer up to that point, then it was WTF?

The Hog ain't pretty, buit she does her job well, and I have serious doubts that the F-35 can do the CAS/FAC role right. And over-complicated? When the Hog came out, she was criticised for the minimal avionics.

So what is considered to be the best overall main battle tank? I've heard of those Leopald's being pretty advanced but nothing real specific.

But I have a relative that works for Lockheed-Martin negotiating contracts with NASA and the military and she occationally complains about how ridiculous it has become.

Until you get a few more notches on that stock, I'd say nothing is "disproven".

Sputnik. Also, some of the Soviet model tanks that were never fully put into production like the one they built to work in recently nuked terrain and/or suffer close range blasts without being flipped over. It only had a production number, but I can't remember what it was.

Even if I only had one example, it disproves that line of thinking because it says "always". Clearly, with even just one example, "always" becomes "not always"

So what is considered to be the best overall main battle tank?
The one with the best crew in it.

The Challenger II and Leo II are right up there, once the Abrams gets the new gun it will be too. The Leclerc and Ariete can play in the same league, and the Japanese have a strong contender too. I know next to nothing about the new Russian models though.

Well at least they didn't put it into combat flawed like the Stryker.

So what is considered to be the best overall main battle tank? I've heard of those Leopald's being pretty advanced but nothing real specific.

But I have a relative that works for Lockheed-Martin negotiating contracts with NASA and the military and she occationally complains about how ridiculous it has become.

A good read on the subject:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200418.asp

Is it me or does it seem like modern western techno-chauvinistic military hardware is increasingly inferior compared to Cold-War successes such as the Russian T series of tanks or the AK assault rifle?
For all the trillions of western tax payers money that go into the development of over-complicated, modern flops such as the SA-80 assault rifle, the A-10 Thunderbolt II and others, should western powers keep on persisting with the techno-chauvinist approach to equipping our militaries or concentrate on technology that works?

It is you.






Yep, but Russia also is switching to a smaller-calibre AK (can't remember the number, however the calibre is less than 6mm instead of the classical Warsaw Pact 7,62 dextrogyre).

The Russians switched to 5.45mm in the late 70's

The new striker wheeled combat vechile is considered by our troops the best thing since sliced bread. Which troops? al-Qaeda ?

North Korea's main battle tanks - T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin.

M1 Abrams: $2,350,000

A obsolete T-62 doesn't have that price tag.
And the Hellfire and the Javelin and the Maverick.
And there are no M1 Abrams in service in the United States military any more




This story somehow reminds me of the urban legend about the infamous NASA ballpoint pen to use in space, supposedly developed for $1.5 million, whereas the Russians simply used a $0.05 pencil.
.
Pencil RUBS off!!!

The US military has absolutely no concept of 'efficiency and reliability' whatsoever, it's answer to everything is 'put more grunt into it' or 'make it bigger and stuff', no wonder after so many years Kalashnikov's are still superior in reliability and use while the M4's lead pin breaks every 1k rounds and the trigger has to be replaced. No wonder further that German tanks were infinitely more advanced in every way in WWII to their Allied counterparts, the only thing being that they were always outnumbered and never had enough fuel (which couldn't have been helped much). It's cliche but the US military is 'quantity of quality' 100%, both in hardware and training.

The military-industrial complex in this country is very much a vicious cycle, a self-perpetuating morass of bloat, payoffs, and meaningless makework, driven by the fact that the defense contractors cannily have located production or distribution facilities in virtually each and every one of America's congressional district, with the result that no congressperson will oppose the system on the grounds of losing jobs within his or her district. These days, the military buys equipment as much for the purpose of generating profits for the defense contractors as for actually providing for our country's legitimate military needs. The reason for this, of course, is the money. Nowhere is the alarming influence of the corporate dollar on American politics more painfully evident (and with deeper consequences) than in our military policy. We shell out billions for next-generation stealth fighters and nuclear submarines while underequipping our ground troops because there is far more money to be made on submarines than on things like effective body armor, reliable rifles, and reliable equipment. In fact, vehicles prone to frequent (and expensive) breakdown--see the Apache attack helicopter for a perfect example--are perfect cash cows for their manufacturers, as only they can make the parts and tools necessary for maintenance and therefore charge anything they want for them. If the armed forces were given free reign to devise their own technological needs without defense contractors telling them what they supposedly want, we'd see a far different military, one that is much more efficient, streamlined, safe, balanced, and effective. Right now, though, the technical decisions are basically in the hands of corporate, not military, interests, and this cold war relic system is proving to be quite dinosaur-like in the new face of war. Even as early as Korea the first signs of the system's inherent flaws were evident. When Eisenhower warned the world about the rise of the military-industrial complex and its effects on both our nation and the whole world, he knew what he was talking about. It's kind of alarming that he understood the plight of our modern military better in 1960 than we do today.

When Eisenhower warned the world about the rise of the military-industrial complex and its effects on both our nation and the whole world, he knew what he was talking about. It's kind of alarming that he understood the plight of our modern military better in 1960 than we do today.

I hate to go off-topic here, but Eisenhower was a twat.

Sure, he warned people about the potential effects of the military-industrial complex...but he never did anything about it.

Thanks, Ike. :rolleyes:

I hate to go off-topic here, but Eisenhower was a twat.

Sure, he warned people about the potential effects of the military-industrial complex...but he never did anything about it.

Thanks, Ike. :rolleyes:

He warned us about it in his last speech as president. By that point, there really wasn't a lot he could do about it one way or another. The other thing is that, during the cold war, the military-industrial complex was a necessary evil. The kind of war we fought then was the kind to which it was a well-suited system. The new war, involving fighting horizontal, delocalized insurgencies, rebels, terrorist networks, and guerrillas, is something that the big-ticket-item mindset of the MIC can't handle. Yes, we still need a lot of what the MIC offers, but it can still be done better if the military, not the contractors, call the shots and define the needs. The military requests things because they are necessary. The contractors sell things because they are profitable. The two needs are frequently in conflict.

The US military has absolutely no concept of 'efficiency and reliability' whatsoever, it's answer to everything is 'put more grunt into it' or 'make it bigger and stuff', no wonder after so many years Kalashnikov's are still superior in reliability and use while the M4's lead pin breaks every 1k rounds and the trigger has to be replaced. No wonder further that German tanks were infinitely more advanced in every way in WWII to their Allied counterparts, the only thing being that they were always outnumbered and never had enough fuel (which couldn't have been helped much). It's cliche but the US military is 'quantity of quality' 100%, both in hardware and training.

Yes, the germans had our asses kicked quality wise in every single way during World War 2. Their tanks were awesome, they had jet planes. They knew their technology, that's for sure. However, this was a result of isolationism and the dismantaling of US armed forces leading up to World War II. That's about as far away from the military-industrial complex as you could possibly get.

The German Leopard II, equipped with the Rheinmetall L55 also makes use of a manual loading system, as per the higher rate of fire. As it stands, it seems probable that the US will upgrade the M1 with the Rheinmetall L55, from the existing Rheinmetall L44 that is used by the M1.


At last, they're buying a good gun.


Let's not forget that the T-90 decreases size by sacrificing crew safety, by storing ammunition in the same compartment as the crew, whereas western tanks store ammo in separate compartments with blowaway panels.

Seconded. But the larger shape of the Abrams (has a crew of 4 instead of the Russian standard of 3) gives it a lot of visual sig, thus becoming more easily a target.

IMO the real issue is, that the US armour doctrine is totally different from the Russian armour doctrine.
Russian armour - many tanks, low-sig, high concentration of armour, firing on the move. That is, mainly frontal attack.
US armour - less tanks, hard armour, more dispersed, firing from half-concealed positions. That is, more defence and counterattack.
This comes from the huge land superiority of Russian armour brigades. The US, in a US/CCCP war, were to contrast it mainly via air power.

About ROF: I've seen a video of a T-90 firing it main gun 3 times in 13 sec. See armor.kiev.ua/fofanov . That's an high ROF, I think.

Yes, the germans had our asses kicked quality wise in every single way during World War 2. Their tanks were awesome, they had jet planes. They knew their technology, that's for sure. However, this was a result of isolationism and the dismantaling of US armed forces leading up to World War II. That's about as far away from the military-industrial complex as you could possibly get.

The german tanks sucked until the Panther - and they had to rebuild the Panther to use the angulated armour plates they saw on the T-34.
Take a Pz.II or a Pz.III, the main tanks used by Wehrmacht until 1943. They look like tin cans. Also the main weapon was lousy, they couldn't even make a dent into a KV heavy tank.
Also, their jets like the Me-262 or the Arado Blitz were great (although they came in too late), but that moron Hitler had them modified to gain StuKa ability. Hitler, the Ultimate Military Idiot.

techno-chauvinistic

That "techno-chauvinism" is good simply because it speeds up technological progress. Fast technological progress is practically only good thing that Armies give to humanity as whole.

Olmedreca;12306036']That "techno-chauvinism" is good simply because it speeds up technological progress. Fast technological progress is practically only good thing that Armies give to humanity as whole.


Real technological progress would happen if the western government weren't so enthralled by defense contractors, and instead diverted their budgets towards Universities which are the real pioneers of new technology and science.

Give a significant example of trickle-down technology from the western military-industrial complex that has benefitted the public in recent times. And don't say Internet, because European and US universities where using a primitive version of the Internet before NORAD.

P.S: Also I've already admitted I made a mistake with the A-10.

Give a significant example of trickle-down technology from the western military-industrial complex that has benefitted the public in recent times. And don't say Internet, because European and US universities where using a primitive version of the Internet before NORAD.

GPS
edit: btw, ARPANET was importnant for development of internet

Olmedreca;12306071']GPS
edit: btw, ARPANET was importnant for development of internet

Which was based on the global packet switching network developed and used by SITA in the early '60s.

Real technological progress would happen if the western government weren't so enthralled by defense contractors, and instead diverted their budgets towards Universities which are the real pioneers of new technology and science.

Give a significant example of trickle-down technology from the western military-industrial complex that has benefitted the public in recent times. And don't say Internet, because European and US universities where using a primitive version of the Internet before NORAD.

P.S: Also I've already admitted I made a mistake with the A-10.

Satellite Imagery.

How about my earlier example comparing the N Korean T-62 to the M1? Doesn't look like many have touched that.





Because the comparison is virtually non-existent.

The road speed of the M1A2 is 72 km/h.
The armor on the T-62 is 153mm of traditional (nonreactive) armor.
The main gun is 115mm smoothbore.
It's easily penetrated by Javelin and Hellfire.

Where the hell do your numbers come from?

Regarding Ike...

It was under his administration that the so called Bomber Gap was discovered. Which quickly turned into the Missile Gap. Which lead to increased strategic arms production.

The entire thing was a case of dick swinging between the CIA and the Air Force. The CIA said that there was no bomber gap...the Air Force said there was a significant gap.

I think Ike was pissed for being had.

Because the comparison is virtually non-existent.

The road speed of the M1A2 is 72 km/h.
The armor on the T-62 is 153mm of traditional (nonreactive) armor.
The main gun is 115mm smoothbore.
It's easily penetrated by Javelin and Hellfire.

Where the hell do your numbers come from?


My numbers come from Mr Han Ho Suk from the Director centre for Korean Affairs.
I think you have to remember that not all T-62/72's fit the same mould. Each country that operates them have upgraded and updated them to their needs. Perhaps that's why my info and your info don't correspond?

For example, the Iraqi Army T-72's where made from "spare parts" imported from Russia in order to avoid the UN weapons embargo. These units where pretty basic, with none of the updated hardware you'll find on, say, Ukrainian T-72's. In many ways they were inferior to the "basic" T-72.

The N Koreans have managed to update these T-62's for more mountainous terrain that is predominant in N Korea. Obviously, their armour thickness and gun calber may have been upgraded from the model you're thinking of.

Then your source is incredibly wrong.

I've checked my numbers repeatedly, to make sure I'm reading it right. You're saying that the DPRK's T-62 tanks have 700mm of Armor, which is 27.56 inches of solid armor.

The Battleship USS Missouri had at it's thickest point armor that was 19.7" thick.

There is no way that the T-62 has thicker armor than the turret on a Battleship, that's such an absurd claim to make that I honestly don't know how to respond. I mean, it's physically impossible for the diesels in a T-62 to move that much bulk.

Beyond that, I found your source, and I call bullshit on him.

There is no possible way that NK's tanks have 700mm of actual armor. They may have been upgraded through the use of reactive armor and armor spacing or other methods, but that would, at best, only be considered the equivalent of 700mm of rolled homogeneous armored steel, which is still not outside the penetration range of US anti-tank missiles.
NK's T-62s are upgraded but nothing like what UN quoted. For one it has only a 125mm gun(a standard caliber that's been around in soviet designs for decades), and cheap explosive reactive armor.

Then your source is incredibly wrong.

I've checked my numbers repeatedly, to make sure I'm reading it right. You're saying that the DPRK's T-62 tanks have 700mm of Armor, which is 27.56 inches of solid armor.

The Battleship USS Missouri had at it's thickest point armor that was 19.7" thick.

There is no way that the T-62 has thicker armor than the turret on a Battleship, that's such an absurd claim to make that I honestly don't know how to respond.

Beyond that, I found your source, and I call bullshit on him.

Damn you're right. Sorry about that I wasn't reading that right obviously. I was becoming suspicious of the 700mm claim myself just a few minutes ago.

...

Actually I just read through my source further and I can see many absurd errors and inconsistencies. The author states that N Korea has been Nuclear for 9 years previously, with a hundred nuclear ICBM's. He's either a moron or a propagandist.

I accept defeat on this discrepancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%27onma-ho

You're probably thinking of this DPRK upgrade to the T-62. It's better than the normal, but nowhere near what your previous claims stated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%27onma-ho

You're probably thinking of this DPRK upgrade to the T-62. It's better than the normal, but nowhere near what your previous claims stated.

That is indeed what I was getting at. Damn it I'm really sorry. I just remembered reading into that from somewhere and slapped it on here without properly clearing it.

Damn my train of thought just got de-railed.

Which was based on the global packet switching network developed and used by SITA in the early '60s.

So? Are you claiming that APRANET was totally unimportnant in the history of internet? If not then my point remains.

btw, Nukes(Nuclear technology), V1 and V2(Rocketry) and Messerschmitt Me 262(Jet aircraft) were also created by techno-chauvinists.

That is indeed what I was getting at. Damn it I'm really sorry. I just remembered reading into that from somewhere and slapped it on here without properly clearing it.

Damn my train of thought just got de-railed.

It's happened to nearly every single person on this board.

Except Lunatic Goofballs, but that's because he's universally correct, and a clown.

Well at least they didn't put it into combat flawed like the Stryker.

The Stryker's flaws stem largely from a very rare case of the army wanting what the USMC has. The LAV-25 was alright, my pals who served on it in GWI tell me, but the Stryker sacrificed armor for transpotability...

The one with the best crew in it.

The Challenger II and Leo II are right up there, once the Abrams gets the new gun it will be too. The Leclerc and Ariete can play in the same league, and the Japanese have a strong contender too. I know next to nothing about the new Russian models though.

I was thinking that is was the one with the best air support.

Yes, the germans had our asses kicked quality wise in every single way during World War 2. Their tanks were awesome, they had jet planes. They knew their technology, that's for sure. However, this was a result of isolationism and the dismantaling of US armed forces leading up to World War II. That's about as far away from the military-industrial complex as you could possibly get.

Even if that were true, which is questionable, you are missing the great difference between the US military and the German one in WWII: logistics. Germany had jet fightrs, true, but they were also so short on petrol and it was so erratically supplied that the jet fighters were dragged out onto the strip by horses. The US may have needed to field seven or eight Ronsons to take out a Tiger, but that wasn't a problem as they had the support structure to repair, crew and supply them.

By the way, for your viewing pleasure, here is a T-72 vs. a Javelin missile:

http://vampirebat.com/war/_t72spanked.wmv

"techno-chauvinist?"

Even if that were true, which is questionable, you are missing the great difference between the US military and the German one in WWII: logistics. Germany had jet fightrs, true, but they were also so short on petrol and it was so erratically supplied that the jet fighters were dragged out onto the strip by horses. The US may have needed to field seven or eight Ronsons to take out a Tiger, but that wasn't a problem as they had the support structure to repair, crew and supply them.

I am aware of all of that. We had the benefit of supplies and numbers on our side. 1 on 1 most of the German military hardware was more than a match for our own.

This technological advantage that the German's had was being used as an example of American military weakness, and implying that this was due to the military industrial complex. My point was that there was no military industrial complex back then. Or if there was one, it was nowhere at all near the current scale.

I was thinking that is was the one with the best air support.
Well, yeah, that too.

Either way, I'm thinking that in the current climate the tank's role is limited. I mean, the Merkava is a great machine, but in Lebanon they got spanked. Badly.

Even a tank designed to deal with urban sort of environments is still more of a liability sometimes if you need to clear out a village. You end up sending so many grenadiers in there to try and make sure no one starts peppering the thing from behind or above that it might be easier to just get infantry to do it.

1 on 1 most of the German military hardware was more than a match for our own.
Though that changed once a bit of experience came around. Late model Shermans were pretty much equal to the Panther. And the Brits had the Centurion in the end, even though they didn't get to use it until Korea.

And the German tanks were always underpowered. I mean, a 600hp engine in a Sturmtiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmtiger)?

My point was that there was no military industrial complex back then. Or if there was one, it was nowhere at all near the current scale.
Well, considering that the US was sending three times as much material to Britain than Britain produced itself in the later years, and managed to supply its own massive military as well, on two fronts, I think there was something going on industry-wise.

This goes to everyone here: watch 'Why We Fight'
Great movie about military spending