[GZG] Subject: Re: What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?

Same chassis and the same mechanical spares but not
necessarily the armour. Particularly now as modular armour seems to the
coming
thing - but I quite agree, an SPG has no need of serious levels of
armour
unless it is an assault gun and they have rather gone out of favour
since WW II
though apparently the Israelis were using M109s in that role in Lebanon
as they
could reach up and hit targets way beyond the elevation of a tank gun
and their
big HE round would clear an entire floor. Horribly vulnerable though for
FIBUA
- but then everything is. Incidentally is there a place for an AFV in
FISH? The
Germans certainly thought so and the Russians too though they just sent
tanks
in without bu**ering about with a specialist design.

Weight is a very telling argument. Are modern MBTs too big?

Oddly there was an SPG conversion for old tank chassis touted for a
while,
replace the turret with a bigger, boxier turret with an artillery piece
(a
Royal Ordnance 155mm I think). I remember thinking your point about it -
the chassis
is armoured which is just excess weight for an SPG and seemingly
everyone else
thought the same as no one bought it!

Michael

      __________________________________________________________
Not happy with your email address?.
Get the one you really want - millions of new email addresses available
now at Yahoo! http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/ymail/new.html

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l