OK, Greg, I don't have the time either.
Esp not  for your 'I"m Right(tm) & everyone else is Wrong(tm)' nonsense...

-------------------------------------------
On Thu, 6/18/15, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [TML] Question
 To: "tml@simplelists.com" <tml@simplelists.com>
 Date: Thursday, June 18, 2015, 4:10 AM

 Ok Phil.
 This is not
 the place, and I don't have the time.
 Its called
 "Groupthink".

 Greg

 On 18 June 2015 at 20:00,
 Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>
 wrote:
 This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
 forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
 sender's email address (philpugliese@yahoo.com)
 has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
 follows:

 --------------------------------------------

 On Wed, 6/17/15, Greg
 Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com>
 wrote:

  Subject: Re: [TML] Question

  To: "tml@simplelists.com"
 <tml@simplelists.com>

  Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2015, 7:44 PM

  On 17 June 2015 at

  23:48, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <nobody@simplelists.com>

  wrote:

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  We'll never know but then we'll also never know
 how

  well soviet equip, doctrine, & logistics would have

  fared either.

   We can theorize but we can't know for sure.

  ===================================

  ​Actually

  no. WP forces effectively re-occupied Czechoslovakia
 and

  Hungary using the same 'theoretical' doctrine
 and

  equipment, and NATO wasn't able to do much about
 those

  operations.​ 

  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 The WP ops w/i Czech & Hun were hardly ';hot-war-
 exercises & since NATO *chose* ( not could n't) to
 do nothing means that we'll never know what would've
 happened.

 We can only *theorize*..

  ========================================================

   Neither I not

   the Soviets were theorising.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Sure they were. They were theorizing how future ops
 would

  unfold & how to equip their forces in order to
 prevail.

  ========================================================================================

  ​The

  operation to occupy West Germany was designed in
 late-1944,

  and was only modified from time to time based on
 increased

  capabilities.​ 

   You can ask the

   question why immediately after the war the first

   'IFV' designs produced were

   the BTR-152 and BTR-50. The answer is the same as for

  BTR-60

   and BMP-1.

   The basis of

   designs was wartime experience that was worked out in
 the

   1930s, and executed

   in over 70 operational-strategic operations between
 1941

  and

   1945, admittedly

   with varying, but mostly successful results. By 1945
 the

  Red

   Army had it down

   to a fairly good formula.

   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  The theories they 'worked out' in the
 '30's

  didn't work out so well when put to the test.

  Not even during the 'Winter War' against Finland
 in

  1940 & esp so in 1941.

  It took real-life experience to work-out the kinks.

  In the end the standard soviet tactics typically
 involved

  horrifyingly high casualties that other nations
 weren't

  willing to accept as SOP.

  =========================================================================

  ​The

  theories that were worked out in the late-20s and early
 30s

  worked very well because they were jointly developed by
 the

  Soviet and Weimar officers (discontinued after 1933).

  They

  didn't work very well in Finland because of the Red

  Army's command structure and organisational culture,
 and

  because the Finns managed to put in place a far better

  defencive system than the Red Army thought.

  From

  1941 Moscow offensive onwards the theories worked

  increasingly well as all echelons of command gained
 more

  expereince.

  ​ ​"In

  the end the standard soviet tactics typically involved

  horrifyingly

  high casualties that other nations weren't willing
 to

  accept as SOP." - I put this statement down to
 your

  lack of awareness of Second World War history.

  The

  Red Army suffered 8 million in military casualties, of
 which

  4 million were suffered in the first six months of the

  war.​ (Casualties mean those not returned to combat,
 so

  include POWs.

  The

  tactics that involved "horrifyingly high

  casualties" were predominantly evident during the

  forementioned initial six months of the war
 (Summer-Autumn

  1941).

  As

  for other nations and their tactics, you only need to
 read

  about the Polish and French desperate counter-attacks
 in

  1939-40, British infantry attacks during the Normandy

  breakout attempts or the USMC assaults of Japanese-held

  islands to know how wrong you are. Sometimes there is
 no

  alternative to a frontal assault. Japanese did it
 though

  they conquered much of Asia through a virtually
 bloodless

  strategy of operational manoeuvre, and Germans did it in
 the

  late war though they were supposed to be masters of

  manoeuvre tactics. Just read about the fortress-cities.

  So

  that leaves one nation I guess.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 I only need to read articles written by just about everyone
 else except you to realize how wrong you are.

 ========================================================================================

   Chobham armour

   is a noteworthy but not entirely relevant factor in
 the

   development of correlation of forces in Cold War
 Europe.

  It

   matters at the

   tactical employment of forces, but is irrelevant

   operationally.

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Well you're the 1st person I've read that has
 said

  that.

  I'm going to have to side with the numerous others
 that

  disagree w/ you.

  ==========================================================

  ​Ok.​ 

  No one in

   Soviet Union ever talked about the 'death of the

   MBT'.

   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  I never said they did.

  Still, I encountered many folks (& read a lot more)
 that

  consistently beat that drum & then shut up after the
 new

  armor appeared.

  =============================================================================================​Its
 not

  about new armour. There is a
 plethora of companies selling

  new armour invented in just the last decade. The problem
 is

  not armour, but how to get this armour onto a beach half
 a

  World away in the numbers needed, affordably &

  efficiently, and still achieve strategic needs. Do you
 see

  the British Empire on your map of the World? Do you
 know

  what armoured vehicle the British Royal Navy Marines use?
 It

  doesn't have Chobham​ armour. It has Swedish
 armour,

  and very thin armour at that. The RM brigade is not a

  strategic or even operational force to project. Its a

  tactical fleet force that can do 'odd jobs' as
 long

  as they don't come up against heavy conventional
 forces.

  The USMC is in the same 'boat' if you pardon
 the

  pun.

  .

  The reason

  I'm the first person you hear talk this way about

  Chobham armour is because everyone else talks about
 tactics,

  but professionals think about logistics FIRST. Most

  professionals though have careers and families to
 support.

 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Or the real reason that  you're the 1st person is that
 all the others have correctly rejected your outlier
 analyses.

 ==================================================================================================

 -----

 The Traveller Mailing List

 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml

 Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com

 To unsubscribe from this list please goto

 http://archives.simplelists.com

 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to listmom@travellercentral.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a