Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4 ( Go to first unread post ) |
Jeff_S |
Posted: July 21, 2006 08:37 pm
|
||
Plutonier Group: Members Posts: 270 Member No.: 309 Joined: July 23, 2004 |
Exactly. Like it was used in the Falklands conflict, where the low ground pressure gave it excellent mobility over wet ground. But it wasn't moved by air as far as I know. |
||
deadmanwalking |
Posted: July 22, 2006 01:19 am
|
Fruntas Group: Members Posts: 62 Member No.: 322 Joined: August 10, 2004 |
I'm just going to say this. As it is, the TR-85 M1 is a poor tank for various reasons. On the other hand, we could make it perfect in another role that better suits our needs. Romania has been subject of invasions too many times already while we haven't played the role of invaders once. If you consider this, a turretless TR-85 would better serve our needs to protect the nation. Maybe there won't be invasions like in 1940 when 4 countries ganged up on us (Soviet Union, Germany, Hungary and Bulgaria) but this is still a volatile region. Armed conflicts have been happening right outside our doorsteps not too long ago pitting romanians vs transnistrians. The 1992 fights weren't exactly low intensity and there can always be the Romania vs Ukraine scenario. We have enough disputes with them already (Snake Island, Bâstroe canal, Black Sea oil, border violations, etc.). A TR-85 chassis with a 120mm M256 fixed gun (provided we get a good deal with the US which shouldn't be too hard - we're giving them our bases!), increased armour, increased mobility and lower profile is better than a TR-85 M1. Sure, if Romania had the choice I would go for a normal tank. But can we afford one? Could be nice to have a prototype. We don't have to dismantle any M1's as we still have a couple of older TR-85's.
|
Zayets |
Posted: July 22, 2006 08:40 am
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Repeat after me : N-A-T-O. And if this doesn't help from now on,then well, we deserve our faith.
For defence I think all it matters in Romania is the Carpathian belt where an enemy who put foot on the mainland can have serious troubles facing even unexperienced miltia. But then, you wouldn't use a tank or anything mounted on a tank chassis in forested areas,would you? Enemy knows that so they will have also other approach. Fact is that even today,our great leaders think that AT guns makes any difference in the modern day warfare. So be it, I'm not the one to decide. And as for not being once on the invasion side , well , look some 3000 km south east. Yes indeed, Irak. |
Imperialist |
Posted: July 22, 2006 09:53 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
The answer to your question is rather simple - we need (some) tanks, (some) AT self propelled guns, (some) ATGMs. Nobody here is against AT self propelled guns, I think we were against the idea that they are the sole solution to Romania's anti-armor needs. -------------------- I
|
||
New Connaught Ranger |
Posted: July 22, 2006 11:41 am
|
||
Colonel Group: Members Posts: 941 Member No.: 770 Joined: January 03, 2006 |
No matter on what battlefield the basic rule is whoever establishes Air Superiority will rule the battleground. Kevin in Deva |
||
deadmanwalking |
Posted: July 22, 2006 12:56 pm
|
||
Fruntas Group: Members Posts: 62 Member No.: 322 Joined: August 10, 2004 |
NATO..? It sure was helpful in Yugoslavia... dropping a few bombs here and there and staying idle while muslim men, women and children were massacred by the thousands. And you want us to count on them for help? You really think the French and Germans would come and get their hands dirty? NATO has become just a paper organization ever since it expanded and included weak nations that can't fend for themselves. Because of this, no other member is interested in playing its role in the organization. And the US, the only real member, will quit soon because there's nothing in for it. On top of that they are supposed to protect the same european countries that sell weapons to China and other opponents of US. Personally I'd hate to be dependant on this organization for the nation's security. And I wouldn't count on the mountains either. First they cover mostly central Romania and if this is our main line of defence... then this means the enemy has gained a lot of ground... Bucharest, Constanta, Iasi and other major cities are not located in the mountains... what's the point of defending in the Carpathians if the enemy may already have the major cities including the capital maybe? As for your 3rd point... 800 soldi... excuse me.. MERCENARIES. don't represent Romania or the Romanian army. This post has been edited by deadmanwalking on July 22, 2006 12:59 pm |
||
Imperialist |
Posted: July 22, 2006 01:30 pm
|
||||||||||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
Actually they dropped 23,000 bombs. NATO also moved in a massive number of airplanes - around 400, and a large number of men to service the whole campaign - some 20,000 or more. That can hardly be called sitting idle!
I think you have to study more about NATO before saying those really big and unbacked words.
And what exactly would you prefer?
Actually, the 800 hundred soldiers do represent Romania and the Army. -------------------- I
|
||||||||||
tomcat1974 |
Posted: July 22, 2006 02:53 pm
|
||
Plutonier Group: Members Posts: 263 Member No.: 427 Joined: December 20, 2004 |
We are going OFFTOPIC here. Are you high on somethin'... just asking.. Those 800 are soldiers of Romanian army. Profesional soldiers, payed to give their lifes if is the case to protect ROmanian Interests. This is the fact. |
||
Zayets |
Posted: July 22, 2006 03:07 pm
|
||||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Not even,a blockade will suffice. Economic sanctions and alike. Rest is in the hand of the people,they know how to deal with leaders that let them down. |
||||
New Connaught Ranger |
Posted: July 22, 2006 03:27 pm
|
||||||
Colonel Group: Members Posts: 941 Member No.: 770 Joined: January 03, 2006 |
I am talking about the fact that when you have your forces on the ground engaging the enemy, the tide of battle favours the one that can provide airsupport for their troops. A Blockade has nothing to do with it, what are you going to Blockade, ?? Do you mean a Naval Blockade ?? An enemy force, or even your own force on offensive operations will have supplies, whether you put troops on the ground, with tanks or artillery you will require protection from enemy attack, hitting the enemy before he gets in range to engage your ground troops from the air, using helicopters or jets is a very sensible option as well as being very demorilising for the enemy. Kevin in Deva |
||||||
Zayets |
Posted: July 22, 2006 05:58 pm
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 363 Member No.: 504 Joined: February 15, 2005 |
Listen pal, first, a naval blockade is not out of question when we talk about Romania (remember, we have a quite big shore).But anyway, I didn't reffered to a naval one only. Secondly, your assumption about the fact that anyone ruling the sky is the one making the rules is plainly wrong. Irak comes,as always, as a handy example. You are mixing pickles with honey here,everybody talked about defence, you come talking about forces in offence. I have the vague impression that you have not read any of the posts in this thread.
Third, we are (and that includes me) way off topic. Discussion was about (any) AG Romania could build/buy in order to perform better on the battlefield. Fletch in Rotterdam |
Victor |
Posted: July 22, 2006 06:07 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Please get back to the original topic, i. e. the self-propelled guns.
|
Imperialist |
Posted: July 24, 2006 07:55 pm
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
-------------------- I
|
||
deadmanwalking |
Posted: July 24, 2006 11:45 pm
|
Fruntas Group: Members Posts: 62 Member No.: 322 Joined: August 10, 2004 |
it's pointless telling us that 2 tanks were destroyed if you don't know which kind and by what. for the media anything tracked is a tank...
|
Imperialist |
Posted: July 25, 2006 03:31 am
|
||
General de armata Group: Members Posts: 2399 Member No.: 499 Joined: February 09, 2005 |
The point is one of them was destroyed by an anti-tank missile, not a self-propelled AT gun that wouldnt have survived the aerial bombardment. And you make a big mistake if you think Israeli journalists dont know what a tank is. In case you still doubt: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3280436,00.html -------------------- I
|
||
Pages: (4) 1 2 [3] 4 |