Prev: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks. Next: Re: [DS] Tank designs was Re: [ds] Ogres

Re: Supertank?

From: Kenneth Winland <kwinland@c...>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 02:57:53 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Supertank?


On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Los wrote:

> They are absolutely ivaluable. The mech rifle company's killing power
> was increased dramaticaly by the introduction of IFVs. A casual
> of the Mechanized Infantry Company Field Manual will show you that the
> infantry are meant to dismount in most  circumstances (once within
> arms range) during the attack and on the defense, of course, always.
> bradley (and BMP) has the survivability of any other APC with the
> bonus of its weapons. If you've been in the infanty for more than five
> minutes, the added advantage is apparent and appreciated.

	What is current US doctrine with IFVs?	I am familiar with
Israeli doctrine, which I think is a bit different...

> BTW, in an infantry assault the 25mm gun is a great force multiplier
> the squad. They're quite amazing things. My first ride in a Bradley: I
> was in the turret of a Bradley and the gunner locked the gun onto the
> tip of a telephone pole. Then the IFV vibrated a lot and made a lot of
> noise for a few minutes. After that we moved to anotehr site and
> repeated the process. When we got back to teh spot where the grease
> monkeys had been working on tehvehilcle I asked why they had stopped
> many times and revved the engine. The guys said they hadn't stopped.
> had locked the gun onto a target then was doing donuts and all kinds
> high speed manuevers. The whole time, the gun remained locked onto the
> telephone pole. Amazing gun stabilization!

	You're kidding, right?!? :)

	That is certainly a defintition of "gun stabilization"...


Prev: Re: [ds] Modern Tanks. Next: Re: [DS] Tank designs was Re: [ds] Ogres