Search results

Not a bad idea, but would it be able to keep up with the M1s? I thought that was a major reason the M60 hulls were a bad idea. Agreed. The Soviets really knew their stuff about air defense. US battlefield air defenses (and NATO in general, to a lesser extent) were noticeably less comprehensive.

The fact that supply carts exist does not make shell weight irrelevant. Let us consider: Assume that the battalion wants as much fire support from their mortars as they can get. Assume that they will load each cart with as much mortar ammunition as will leave the cart still able to get where...

My first thought is to look at that shell weight and wince. It used to be standard practice (and may still be) for every infantryman to carry a pair of mortar bombs with them, and drop them off so the company mortars had something to shoot. Hauling an extra 7kg is bad enough, make that 12kg and...

That's exactly what I was thinking of! Here are the other aircraft, for anyone interested:

And flown by a committee.

I'm amazed nobody has started an argument about rifle cartridges in this thread yet.

There was a defence review back in the 1970s (I think) which made that exact point but in relation to the RNZN, not the RNZAF. The argument was that SSKs were far better for defence, including ASW work, so the frigates should be retired and half a dozen SSKs acquired. Nobody took it very...

Apocryphal, but I've heard it applied to magazines for the M16. Green Berets in 1968-ish were advised to load magazines with only 28 rounds rather than 30, explicitly to keep the spring strong, and I think the first versions of the M16 had a straight magazine.

Wait, what? But the GAU-8 is huge! The A-10 was literally designed around the cannon! How on God's green Earth could you mount it on the A-7?!?

I don't think that's fair. There's a "minimum viable force" argument - for example perhaps there's no point in having 2 tanks, you need 20 in order to realistically be able to conduct armoured operations, that sort of thing. And it applies across all services. These capabilities cost a lot to...

Those proposals floated around for quite a while. One of my "favourites" popped up in the mid-90s: there was a defence white paper which suggested basic training should be the same for all services, and it should focus on SAR and disaster relief duties, such as firefighting, on the basis that's...

You're not completely wrong, but you're not completely right either. In terms of military necessity, the purchase is utterly unnecessary - there are no realistic scenarios in which New Zealand a) has a need for an air combat capability, and b) is not operating with allies or partners who already...

Agree, there's no reason for the RNZAF to buy replacements for the Macchis. In fact, most of them - 17 of the 18 purchased - are still in storage down at Ohakea, so they're available. I think OP is correct: the decision would have to be made before 1998. Perhaps the government decides to...

I regret I have but one like to give for this post.

Way I see it, the F-35 was the only show in town, so there was no choice - it had to perform all the important missions. I'm not even talking about the stuff for the military here: keeping LockMart busy and paid, keeping their contractors in business, siphoning off defence dollars to splash into...

What about the aerial refueling possibility that was mentioned? Do you regard that as practical? And if so, would it resolve the range issue?

They absolutely could set the bomb fuses - what they could not do was convince the pilots to drop them from high enough that the fuse had time to arm. And the pilots were correctly reluctant to approach a Type 42 or Type 22 at much above wavetop height. Now, if they'd been carrying rocket pods...

For some audiences, the number of bombs that hit the runway will be what impresses them. For others, the total tonnage of bombs will impress. For a few, the fact that the raid took place at all will blow their socks off. Without knowing what the intended effect of the raid was, or what would...

I'm not sure of that. I can see where you're coming from, and I agree with the point that I think you're trying to make (it's best if your fighter is world-beating in at least one significant area, better yet all of them). But cheap and dependable are actually pretty good qualities for military...

It's not a million miles away from that in NZ at the moment. Mail gets delivered 3 times a week (spirit willing and the crick don't rise), and it can take longer for a letter to travel 40km than to get to Japan. I doubt people in 1920 would stand for that sort of performance, mind you, but as...