Jump to content

Stuart666

Members
  • Content Count

    954
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stuart666

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,713 profile views
  1. Just a thought, what about a WW1 addon? Ive always thought a Plan 1919 game would fascinating. That and having to multiplayer 4 people just to drive your MkIV kind of appeals to the sadist in me.
  2. I can certainly sympathize with the difficulty of getting access to a Challenger 1. I tried at one of the Beltring shows to gain access to the privately owned one, and was pretty much slapped down. As I understand from a friend, it wasnt much of a loss. It was a prototype that they managed to cadge a turret for and slapped it on top, and it was largely empty inside. Most of the others in the UK (and there isnt that many left now) are in military collections. And the MOD do have some strange regulations on security. For example, you can buy a Challenger 1 manual on ebay no problem at all. But i
  3. Thanks for converting these Kevin. Im gratified people are still having fun with this, they must be well over 10 years old by now.
  4. Without looking at the documents in English I couldnt give a better verdict, other than to say you have to be careful of assuming that someones rank gives a guide to the kind of access they had. If you want a good illustration of that, look at the works of Viktor Suvorov.... Its certainly interesting however, and I think you for it.
  5. I thought that might be the case. The only reason why I ask is that in 2002 a book called 'Cold War a Military History' by David Miller (pretty good book actually) came out with what it said were authentic warplans from the East German Archives. Unfortunately as it turned out these were, as with the Polish and I think possibly the Czech plans, wargames. They might show elements of what a Soviet warplan were, but were not actually the plans themselves. I gather there was some discussion over the article (on which Miller based a chapter of his book on) in the Parallel history archive, and the co
  6. Just thought I would drop in to point out, Harold Coyle was interviewed (as part of the release of the new wargame series) recently, and gave his view on the tactical picture at the time, and how he views it subsequently. He himself points to it being unrealistic how the single nuclear attack on either side developed, and suggests the nuclear release would have been much more general out of the gate. I personally give it 3 days tops before it went nuclear. The British were optimistic and planned for a week of conventional warfare before it all came apart. But there we are, that's Brits being
  7. But its still not mounted in the turret front, which is the point im making. Yeah you could have mounted it on the turret top, but as you point out, the would make the whole area very crowded and untidy. A hit on the GPS would very likely take out the TOGs as well if it was sat there. You could of course mount it on the turret side. But that looked a bit of a dogs breakfast in Challenger 1 and I cant blame them for wanting to move it. It would in any case mean that mounting uparmour on the turret side would be very difficult. Where it is is not a great place, but Im not sure there is anywhere
  8. I ought to add something to the Thermal debate. Its true that the sight is in a strange place. The commander has an image intensifier (if memory serves) a Thales 580 sight that when built does actually have an option for fitting a thermal viewer. Im not sure why it doesnt have one already, and certainly the Desert Challenger (or C2E as its otherwise known) did indeed have a Leclerc thermal sight available to the commander. http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/land-forces/33024-challenger-2-challenger-2e-enhanced-export.html Which is presumably why they dont mount a gunners thermal sight at all o
  9. Just so you all know, the grate site is now back up. Make sure you thank all those who got it going again on the FFZ. http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?act=idx
  10. Best Chieftain (automotively anyway) was Shir1/Khalid. When the Iranian order fell through there was something like 200 vehicles without a home. MOD would have been wise to have bought them, if only to have bailed out the manufacturers. Jordan got them instead. Also had a pretty good image intensifier sight on it for the commander. On the positive side Challenger1 was rather better than its press describes. Fire on the move was pretty much a joke (mainly due to the poor stab) but it was no less accurate than Chieftain from a static position, and the armour was pretty good. The thermal optical
  11. It depends who you talk to. Yeah, the initial versions were a bit underpowered, but the later versions were rather better, and actually fairly reliable when they ditched the multifuel mode (which Britain had stuck with, long after Nato gave up on the idea). In fact even some of the earlier models seem to have been quite good. A friend of mine swears that when he was using a Mk3 (in theory one of the more unreliable versions) and never had any problems with it, because he maintained it properly. Ultimately the Israeli Army wanted to buy Chieftain with the existing power-plant. That pretty much
  12. Nope. Its a common misnomer, but Centurion was actually laid down in specs and significant design months before the British Army encountered Panther. Someone proved that on Tanknet. If you look at it, it seems more inspired by Tiger, with a fusion of 'Cruiser' tank elements and Heavy tanks like Churchill. It was closest to Montys concept of a 'universal' tank, but thats only because A45, a heavier cousin based on Conqueror rolling gear, never got beyond the prototype. Even that version was very different from Mk2, in that it had thinner side armour and a totally different turret. Mk2 had the f
  13. Even prior to the new strategy emerging in the 1980s, of course BAOR did practice counteroffensive doctrine. But one must not get carried away and assume you are talking about hail mary style offensives. They were relatively short range counteroffensives to retake vital ground, or eliminate limited Soviet offensive salients. There would appear to be nothing compared to what 1 UK Div practiced (and did) in Iraq in 1991 before the mid 80s. One British tank commander told me they even had the defensive positions already sorted out. It was just a matter of deploying there. That all changed with
  14. Well, arguably the US Army AFV were more optimized for that kind of fight. I recall on tanknet them talking of engagements of 1500 metres of less in some areas. You only have to look at Fulda gap to realise their fights were going to be in far hillier terrain than up north. Perhaps not really appropriate to compare Korea to Fulda gap though. South Korea is still rather more boggy. UK armour (well since Centurion anyway) was optimised to fight on the North German plain, which is long visibility intersected with good defensive positions, either villages, forests of valleys. Its much more open t
  15. The actual tanknet name has been down for a while. It expired when Geoff died (he owned the right to the server name or something) and they were unable to gain it back because the server company decided to behave like dickheads and put it up for sale. As far as I know, they never acquired it again, and just used the 208 number. Colin suggests that he read on facebook its temporarily down, and should be back up soon. Lets hope so. I miss the old place rather more than I thought I would. http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=109847.0
×
×
  • Create New...