Is a complete collapse imminent?

[Douger]

Think of the 6000 US Abrams tanks versus the 25,000 T-72 types. The Abrams at four-to-one odds can probably come out on top. The German stuff wasn't that good.

If I remember right, didn't it take five American tanks to knock out a German one in WWII?

 

[ScottBot]

If I remember right, didn't it take five American tanks to knock out a German one in WWII?

depends on which American tank and which German tank we are talking about.

 

[ACougar]

10 years in the Royal Australian Armoured Corps

I spent 4 years on the M60, however the rest of my 20 years was spent in communications security, so it doesn't really have any bearing on the discussion.

Merkava's 120mm smoothbore is comparable to the 120mm smoothbore the current Abrams generation packs.

I'm not so sure about that, we left behind a rifled 105mm and picked up the German made M256A1 because it was the best out there bar none. I believe the M1A2 is more accurate at longer ranges, however I can't find anything that compares it to the Merkava.

Unquestionably, the Merkava has the best armour in the world. You should check its survivability stats under sustained fire. In situations like those the Israelis AND the Australian armies find themselves in, survivability is key.

My impression is that the Merkava is designed to fight third rate tanks, T62's, T55's, ect... one of the reasons it carries more ammo than most other MBTs. Has an M1 ever suffured more than a mobility kill in combat against another tank?

Thats the trade off in Merkava... she's slow. but to a competant tank commander, making adequate use of ground, operating with appropriate mutual support from secondary callsigns, speed is not the be all and end all.

It's an important factor in battle, it's not the be all and end all... however its an important edge.

However, operating in close country or in urban environments, (like modern conflicts tend to be in) armour IS vital, since no amount of speed, maneuver or support can stop a pop up rag with an RPG-7 on a rooftop from putting a HEAT round into the top of the fighting compartment. Merkava's armour WILL make this survivable though. comparableagain, comparable.

Hard data on armor performance is still classified, however I will reiterate that no M1 crewman has ever been killed in a tank in combat against another enemy tank or from an anti-tank weapon of any kind except mines or IEDs containing multiple rounds and sometimes more than 500KG of explosives. I'm also not so sure that penetrators and night vision are comparable... the same goes for stabilization or it's ability to shoot on the move.

Merkava also does other interesting things, like mounting the engine in the front, rather than the rear like most AFVs. It also has an infantry carrying compartment, which means that a pure tank unit (as opposed to a cavalry/APC unit with tanks) never has to do without FOXHOUNDS.

Tanks exist to kill other tanks and armored vehicles, I don't think it makes sense to try and turn them into infantry fighting vehicles. Every capability comes at a cost, size, weight, speed, pricetag... instead of one tool designed to be a screw driver, a wrench, and a hammer. I'd prefer a tool that is best at just being a hammer when it comes time to hammer.

I can't speak for Greece. as to Australia, back when the Abrams purchase was going through, I made my feelings on the matter very clear to anyone in the CofC who would listen, but the short answer is, Abrams was cheaper, and sadly, the Australian Defence procurement agency at the time thought that price was a bigger concern. Of course, no major armoured deployments were clear on the horizon at that point. Speaking as someone who spent 6 months commanding AFVs in Al Muthanna province, I can tell you that I would have prefered to be in a Merkava than a mere ASLAV.

Price is a factor. I'm fairly certain I'd pick a Merkava over an ASLAV as well. That doesn't mean I'd pick a Merkava to go into a fight against an M1, Leopard 2 or Challenger.

given the current deployments of both the US and Australian Armies, what we're doing in the various trouble spots around the world to which we are deployed, in what way do you see the IDF's mission being much different to ours, other than their mission is on their doorstep, whereas we have to go a ways away to get to ours?

First, you have to be able to get your forces to the battle. The Merkava presents a greater challenge in that regard than say an M1. Second, you should be able to fight anywhere... heaven forbid were ever fighting the Russians or the Chinese, however our MBTs should be able to deal with that kind of threat... not just the sort of threat that might be presented by Syria or Iran... and it should be able to fight in any environment.

I respectfully disagree

That's cool. However I wonder if your really looking at this from the perspective of a Tank commander...

The Merkava is designed for the IDF and thier situation, we currently find ourselves in simmilar situations where some of the advantages of the Merkava might come in handy... however a MBT should IMO remain focused on the killing of other MBTs and armored vehicles in any environment and in this regard the Merkava simply doesn't keep pace.

 

[Steve Petersen]

A battle between these tanks would be fun to model. I would guess this has already been done by our DoD.

 

[chaz345]

Umm, I'll take the M1 Abrams and FA22 Raptor over anything else that's out there every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

When I said what I did I was speaking mostly in terms of WW2. Yes the Germans had a huge technological advantage when we look at what was actually deployed, but if we look at both sides available technology, I suspect the gap might have been lower. It's just that the US chose to deploy what we could actually build in large numbers.

 

[ScottBot]

When I said what I did I was speaking mostly in terms of WW2. Yes the Germans had a huge technological advantage when we look at what was actually deployed, but if we look at both sides available technology, I suspect the gap might have been lower. It's just that the US chose to deploy what we could actually build in large numbers.

If we are gonna go with that, might as well go with the Soviet T-34. It was so uncomplicated that farmers out of the field could be trained to crew it in a matter of a couple of hours.

 

[jamesrwright3]

When I said what I did I was speaking mostly in terms of WW2. Yes the Germans had a huge technological advantage when we look at what was actually deployed, but if we look at both sides available technology, I suspect the gap might have been lower. It's just that the US chose to deploy what we could actually build in large numbers.

I don't think so. The Germans had stuff we couldn't touch. The bad thing, for the Germans at least, is they made the wrong choices in terms of what weapons they should emphasize. They had elementary GPS in some of their bombers (worked on radio transmitters) and guided bombs.

 

[ScottBot]

I don't think so. The Germans had stuff we couldn't touch. The bad thing, for the Germans at least, is they made the wrong choices in terms of what weapons they should emphasize. They had elementary GPS in some of their bombers (worked on radio transmitters) and guided bombs.

Not to mention high altitude jet fighters, the battle rifle.

 

[MerchantofMenace]

Not to mention high altitude jet fighters, the battle rifle.

Assault rifle.

Of course they're not much good when you can't get them to the front.

 

[ScottBot]

Assault rifle.

Of course they're not much good when you can't get them to the front.

Well, we all know what the Soviets did when they discovered the StG44.

 

[alexgb00]

Except for some minor operations against the Japanese, the Russians pretty much fought the Axis, which included Hungary, Romania, Italy, Slovakia, and Bulgaria.

Bulgaria was, for a time, part of that alliance, but according to all accounts I've ever read, Bulgarian forces never met the Red Army in combat. Just information.

Oh, also, it's hard to trust statistics which attribute deaths to Stalin. Since the whole reason for those kinds of statistics is often to make the guy look worse, they tend to be horribly inflated. For example, if there were X total deaths in the USSR in 1924-1953, the years when Stalin had at least partial control of the nation, they could all, conceivably, be attributed to the man by extension. (Regardless if the person was sentenced by law and executed completely fairly, or extrajudiciously, if they died of natural causes or if they were killed in an accident.)

Don't misunderstand, I'm not justifying Stalin's strict rule. I'm just saying that figures like that grow with every mention.

My mother told me this: her sick grandfather was sentenced to prison during the collectivization in the 30s, but his wife offered to serve the term for him, because his health was so bad. He spent every day outside of the prison waiting for her. As it happens, she became sick while in prison and died, after which he also quickly passed away.

 

[CCGirl]

CAN we get back on topic please? Perhaps open a new thread on military matters!

 

[CCGirl]

I disagree. The baby boomers aren't going to break the system, because they aren't going to be able to retire. A fair number of them have seen their retirement go away and if they haven't pulled out by now they will probably be wiped out by July. AIG is still failing. They will be reporting a 60 billion dollar loss next Monday. That alone should be worth a loss of another 250 in the Dow.


The main employment problem this decade is going to be that the baby boomers that were going to retire aren't because they will be putting their kids through college (because student loans, at least for levels below grad school will now be history) or because they will still be just trying to keep that roof of their head. It's a shame that it is the baby boomer middle class that will suffer, but the baby boomers will be getting just desserts for their errors. The problem is, by continuing to work they will keep the younger generations from being able to move up into their jobs, the jobs that are still there. I believe that this will end up driving young people into the military as I explain here

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=50739798#post50739798

So, US SS is included in general spending??! Not kept seperate?


I certainly hope that the younger generation doesnt lose all faith in the future and risking their lives for a job that entails becoming a professional killer.:o

 

[jamesrwright3]

So, US SS is included in general spending??! Not kept seperate?


I certainly hope that the younger generation doesnt lose all faith in the future and risking their lives for a job that entails becoming a professional killer.:o

Yes..it's included in general spending. The government spent the money when we had a surplus from SS revenues. If we had actually "saved" that money instead of spending it, SS would not be invsolvent.

 

[CCGirl]

Yes..it's included in general spending. The government spent the money when we had a surplus from SS revenues. If we had actually "saved" that money instead of spending it, SS would not be invsolvent.

Yikes! I have no idea how this can be solved. Our CPP is seperate from revenues and is invested as such. When did the SS revenues get included into general spending?

 

[ACougar]

The simple solution is to simply print the money out and issue checks as needed. We let Banks get away with creating money, why not allow government to cover social security by creating the money required?

Yikes! I have no idea how this can be solved. Our CPP is seperate from revenues and is invested as such. When did the SS revenues get included into general spending?

 

[canukian]

The simple solution is to simply print the money out and issue checks as needed. We let Banks get away with creating money, why not allow government to cover social security by creating the money required?

inflation is very nasty.

 

[Zlex]

The simple solution is to simply print the money out and issue checks as needed. We let Banks get away with creating money, why not allow government to cover social security by creating the money required?

Tax more....borrow more...print more money....charge more use fees!

If when we come to the end of Paul Krugman's $5T of remaining world credit, and the economies are still on their rear-ends, and someone has to pony up those IOUs in the SS trust fund, I guess that leaves:

Tax more....charge more use fees.

Right after the "payroll tax holiday."

Sounds like a Plan.

No it doesn't. Actually, it sounds like a clueless end game.

Good luck.

Hey kids! Our 'investment' in SS paid off! You only have to be taxed and borrowed from to the tune of an extra $1,822 for every $1,000 that the gov't spent 20 years ago, buying votes!

That's pretty brilliant investing! Thanks Dad!

No problem, Son. It was painless.

So, currently, more of the same, the gov't is flailing around, artificially trying to keep that bubble inflated yet longer with yet more crazy borrowing from the future as pure insanity, but it is all our out of control political cronyfest gov't knows how to do.

It never made any sense, it was always crap, even at the peak of the credit funded consumption party, no matter how good times were.

I've had some very good times totally drunk, and there is always a day after. This is it.

We drunkenly paid for others retirement. We showed up at the party with an extra 30 million paying party-ers, but that wasn't enough, our elders wanted to throw an even larger party, so in addition to the demographic subsidy, they and we also ran up our credit cards, to pass the party bill to our kids, just as they continue to do as we speak. It was sure enough a great party, brilliant, and now we are having Census reassure us that it will be all those streaming illegals from Mexico who will be paying for our generation's retirement, no worries.

So, where is the 'better' argument? The better idea is based on the alchemy of how one actually defers present value and converts it into future value. That is done by investing in future economies. That is not done by the opposite, which is, borrowing from future economies, which is exactly and precisely what we all did do, what the gov't was forced to do with the SS Trust Fund subsidies, because before all this bail out nonsense, it had no way to convert an asset on its books into equity in future economies. After all, we were told, we couldn't have the gov't involved in Wall STreet. (Then...what were we as a nation doing handing over an extra 10% of earnings to the gov't based on its claim to do exactly that--defer present value into future value?) I know that isn't 'the function of SS taxes' -- and I also knew it then, when Congress used the argument to overtax an already surplus paying demographic. SS, as run, no matter how wonderful the party was when it was abused, was insane.

Because it did the opposite; it borrowed from the future economies(by immediately spending the current value and converting it into an IOU, a demand on future economies.)

This is a double whammy. Not only did it not invest in those future economies, but it did worse than doing nothing; it borrowed from them. And, pointing out how well the economies did in spite of the government's fat fingering with SS is not nearly the same as saying they did so because of.

Well, those future economies are here. These are them. Our busted ass, carcass carved, bones are showing economies are those economies. Our penniless federal treasury, facing a future of never going to be met obligations growing by the minute, is the treasury we should expect in those future economies.

We will try to keep this insanity floating, for as long as guns and printing presses and crap will allow. Obama will try, but in the end, the federal gov't is going to be a tiny fraction of what it is today. The nations economies will pick up the pieces, we'll pull in our belts, this generation's pain will be back end loaded, just like our parents generation's pain was front end loaded.

 

[ACougar]

In the end it's all going to come down... the only question is when, where and how.... simply devaluing the currency by printing enough of it to cover all our debts may be the least painfull way to slowly collapse into another currency or perhaps even a barter economy.

Tax more....borrow more...print more money....charge more use fees!

If when we come to the end of Paul Krugman's $5T of remaining world credit, and the economies are still on their rear-ends, and someone has to pony up those IOUs in the SS trust fund, I guess that leaves:

Tax more....charge more use fees.

Right after the "payroll tax holiday."

Sounds like a Plan.

No it doesn't. Actually, it sounds like a clueless end game.

Good luck.

Hey kids! Our 'investment' in SS paid off! You only have to be taxed and borrowed from to the tune of an extra $1,822 for every $1,000 that the gov't spent 20 years ago, buying votes!

That's pretty brilliant investing! Thanks Dad!

No problem, Son. It was painless.

So, currently, more of the same, the gov't is flailing around, artificially trying to keep that bubble inflated yet longer with yet more crazy borrowing from the future as pure insanity, but it is all our out of control political cronyfest gov't knows how to do.

It never made any sense, it was always crap, even at the peak of the credit funded consumption party, no matter how good times were.

I've had some very good times totally drunk, and there is always a day after. This is it.

We drunkenly paid for others retirement. We showed up at the party with an extra 30 million paying party-ers, but that wasn't enough, our elders wanted to throw an even larger party, so in addition to the demographic subsidy, they and we also ran up our credit cards, to pass the party bill to our kids, just as they continue to do as we speak. It was sure enough a great party, brilliant, and now we are having Census reassure us that it will be all those streaming illegals from Mexico who will be paying for our generation's retirement, no worries.

So, where is the 'better' argument? The better idea is based on the alchemy of how one actually defers present value and converts it into future value. That is done by investing in future economies. That is not done by the opposite, which is, borrowing from future economies, which is exactly and precisely what we all did do, what the gov't was forced to do with the SS Trust Fund subsidies, because before all this bail out nonsense, it had no way to convert an asset on its books into equity in future economies. After all, we were told, we couldn't have the gov't involved in Wall STreet. (Then...what were we as a nation doing handing over an extra 10% of earnings to the gov't based on its claim to do exactly that--defer present value into future value?) I know that isn't 'the function of SS taxes' -- and I also knew it then, when Congress used the argument to overtax an already surplus paying demographic. SS, as run, no matter how wonderful the party was when it was abused, was insane.

Because it did the opposite; it borrowed from the future economies(by immediately spending the current value and converting it into an IOU, a demand on future economies.)

This is a double whammy. Not only did it not invest in those future economies, but it did worse than doing nothing; it borrowed from them. And, pointing out how well the economies did in spite of the government's fat fingering with SS is not nearly the same as saying they did so because of.

Well, those future economies are here. These are them. Our busted ass, carcass carved, bones are showing economies are those economies. Our penniless federal treasury, facing a future of never going to be met obligations growing by the minute, is the treasury we should expect in those future economies.

We will try to keep this insanity floating, for as long as guns and printing presses and crap will allow. Obama will try, but in the end, the federal gov't is going to be a tiny fraction of what it is today. The nations economies will pick up the pieces, we'll pull in our belts, this generation's pain will be back end loaded, just like our parents generation's pain was front end loaded.

 

[CCGirl]

Remember what Marx said would follow the collapse of capitalism?