FA+
Shop
329
Views
Views
7
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 750 x 1000
File Size 90.2 kB
Report this content
More from Ich
An other view from the Flak
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 750 x 1000px
File Size 90.2 kB
"-Why i have the feeling that something like that will happen sometime again , maybe in the near future-"
I have a feeling that will be the case in the near future as well, but not for the same reasons as the weapons designed by the Axis just before World War 2.
If you've read my rebuttals to a couple of stories in Armor Magazine, it should be obvious why.
The stories I've debunked ALL attempt to glean predictions of Battletank evolution based not upon observations of precedent, visible development and/or sales trends, the potential enemy's point of view and/or doctrine, or even the capabilities and/or features of Western tanks in service.
Rather, these "predictions" aren't actually predictions at all --- they're actually scaremongering. They're designed to prod the development of Western tanks using PHONY tales of amazing, super secret tanks that, rather than attempts to determine the direction the development of rival tanks is going.
Remember the "inevitable threat" of the "impending" FST-1 in the 1980s, later recycled as the FST-2 (mid-1980s), and again as the FST-3 (late 1980s)? It was supposed to be a 40-ton tank with no turret, Depleted Uranium armor, a 2-man crew, and a Smoothbore 130mm gun.
The FST-1/2/3 was originally a design study, but the (Br)asshats gradually twisted it into a story of what the Russians were building to supersede the T-80. Of course, the tanks that ACTUALLY superseded the T-80 was the T-90; a highly-evolved T-72.
Also recall how shocked and amazed the Western Bloc was, upon the discovery of the T-64 in the mid-1970s. It startled the West how thousands of never-before-seen tanks could be built and fielded, and not noticed for 10 years.
Naturally, the Defense Establishment was quick to cover their asses by spin-doctoring this intelligence-gathering failure as another case of "those wily Soviets", a trend on the West's part that never stopped --- even when the then-well-known T-64 STILL failed to materialize at any Soviet public events (exhibitions, parades, etc.), and was STILL not offered on the export market (while ALL previous and subsequent Soviet tanks were!).
In other words, the Defense Establishment doesn't actually try to predict Threat AFV Development at all --- compare the "inevitable threat" of the "impending" FST-1, with the T-90, T-84, Type 96, Type 99, P'okpoong-Ho, and Zulfiqar III Main Battle Tanks that were ACTUALLY developed, and the fantasy T-94/T-95 that can't seem to materialize despite a supposed 15-year development span.
If the design trends of Threat AFVs are any indication, we *will* be caught by surprise by the next-generation Battletank, not because we couldn't see it coming, but rather because we CHOSE NOT TO.
I have a feeling that will be the case in the near future as well, but not for the same reasons as the weapons designed by the Axis just before World War 2.
If you've read my rebuttals to a couple of stories in Armor Magazine, it should be obvious why.
The stories I've debunked ALL attempt to glean predictions of Battletank evolution based not upon observations of precedent, visible development and/or sales trends, the potential enemy's point of view and/or doctrine, or even the capabilities and/or features of Western tanks in service.
Rather, these "predictions" aren't actually predictions at all --- they're actually scaremongering. They're designed to prod the development of Western tanks using PHONY tales of amazing, super secret tanks that, rather than attempts to determine the direction the development of rival tanks is going.
Remember the "inevitable threat" of the "impending" FST-1 in the 1980s, later recycled as the FST-2 (mid-1980s), and again as the FST-3 (late 1980s)? It was supposed to be a 40-ton tank with no turret, Depleted Uranium armor, a 2-man crew, and a Smoothbore 130mm gun.
The FST-1/2/3 was originally a design study, but the (Br)asshats gradually twisted it into a story of what the Russians were building to supersede the T-80. Of course, the tanks that ACTUALLY superseded the T-80 was the T-90; a highly-evolved T-72.
Also recall how shocked and amazed the Western Bloc was, upon the discovery of the T-64 in the mid-1970s. It startled the West how thousands of never-before-seen tanks could be built and fielded, and not noticed for 10 years.
Naturally, the Defense Establishment was quick to cover their asses by spin-doctoring this intelligence-gathering failure as another case of "those wily Soviets", a trend on the West's part that never stopped --- even when the then-well-known T-64 STILL failed to materialize at any Soviet public events (exhibitions, parades, etc.), and was STILL not offered on the export market (while ALL previous and subsequent Soviet tanks were!).
In other words, the Defense Establishment doesn't actually try to predict Threat AFV Development at all --- compare the "inevitable threat" of the "impending" FST-1, with the T-90, T-84, Type 96, Type 99, P'okpoong-Ho, and Zulfiqar III Main Battle Tanks that were ACTUALLY developed, and the fantasy T-94/T-95 that can't seem to materialize despite a supposed 15-year development span.
If the design trends of Threat AFVs are any indication, we *will* be caught by surprise by the next-generation Battletank, not because we couldn't see it coming, but rather because we CHOSE NOT TO.
Comments