Phalanx Cwis

The warships of today's navies, current naval events, ships in the news, etc.
User avatar
marcelo_malara
Senior Member
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:14 pm
Location: buenos aires

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby marcelo_malara » Sat Sep 27, 2008 5:37 pm

The M-60 was at worst on a par with all other MBTs of it's generation what's your problem with it?

Sorry, I mean the howitzer/Shillelagh version.

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby Bgile » Sat Sep 27, 2008 6:25 pm

marcelo_malara wrote:
The M-60 was at worst on a par with all other MBTs of it's generation what's your problem with it?

Sorry, I mean the howitzer/Shillelagh version.

My sensitivity has something to do with the fact that I was a tank commander in an M60. Over several years I served in the M60, M60A1, and M60A3. We didn't have the M60A2, which is the 152mm/Shillelagh version but I understand it was successful. The 152mm didn't work very well in the M551 Sheridan light airborne vehicle because it was too light for the gun's recoil. That problem didn't exist in the tank version. The missile was very sensitive to burning when subjected to turret penetration though, so was eventually given up. Any missile system has the problem that it's slower than a sabot, so you might be destroyed by an enemy even though you fire first. The howitzer made a really good weapon in an urban environment, and was used on the engineer version.

Two advantages I can think of over the T-62:

1. The T-62 had such a low profile that it couldn't depress it's gun very much. This means it was difficult for it to operate hull down because you normally sit on a slight incline and depress your gun over the top of the berm. They ended up actually providing a bigger target than we did, because they had to move up further on the berm. Since we fought hull down as much as possible ...

2. Both tanks had guns that could destroy the other, but we had much better FC so more first round hits. In the A3 at least our FC system was almost the same as on the later M-1. Our gun stabilization was also better so we could fire better on the move.

Sorry ... I probably over reacted. :)

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby Karl Heidenreich » Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:27 pm

Let me add the following:

I agree with Marcelo, as the M60 is just another "inferior" tanks as was the Sherman in WWII. The US won over the Germans because there were more Shermans than Tigers or Panthers. Being even in numbers the Shermans would have been good for German scrap metal companies.

The western overconfidence in high tech gadgets and the relative "qualitative" advantage they have in weapondry and training can dig a lot of graves.

Nowaday the US Army, Marines and Reserves didn´t sum enough to confront a Russian type of enemy (or Chinese) in an open field battle as the Germans discovered to their own surprise in WWII.

I found that nowaday the US naval units are not so armoured and they relied too much in their own air power. What if a sophisticated Su or Mig with their sophiticated missile penetrated the CAP´s air screen?

Would such an incredible big investement as a CVN only defense would be a Phalanx?

Best regards.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby lwd » Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:04 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:...I agree with Marcelo, as the M60 is just another "inferior" tanks as was the Sherman in WWII. The US won over the Germans because there were more Shermans than Tigers or Panthers. Being even in numbers the Shermans would have been good for German scrap metal companies.....

There is a book out called When Odds Were Even or something to that effect that suggest otherwise. The Sherman was a very well designed tank that fit into the US concept of operations. While it didn't have the most powerful gun or the thickest armor it was light enough to move in numbers across the world. It worked with US bridging equipment. It was reliable. Etc.

The M60 was also well designed in many ways. Again it was at worse comparable to any other MBT of it's generation.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby lwd » Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:21 pm

Some mention of Phalanx in this article:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/ ... 80928.aspx
More at that site.

jackbrown
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:20 am

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby jackbrown » Fri Apr 09, 2010 11:52 am

Why are we still using GDs 20mm Phalanx? Why not use the "Goalkeeper" that the Dutch Navy uses? The gun itself is the same as that used on the A-10 Warthog (GAU-8). Spain has an interesting system which uses two groups of six 20mm barrels, one above the other (I forgot the name, though).

User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 815
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby José M. Rico » Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:05 am

jackbrown wrote:Spain has an interesting system which uses two groups of six 20mm barrels, one above the other (I forgot the name, though).

That's the "Meroka".

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSpain ... Meroka.htm

Bgile
Senior Member
Posts: 3658
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:33 pm
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: Phalanx Cwis

Postby Bgile » Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:14 am

jackbrown wrote:Why are we still using GDs 20mm Phalanx? Why not use the "Goalkeeper" that the Dutch Navy uses? The gun itself is the same as that used on the A-10 Warthog (GAU-8). Spain has an interesting system which uses two groups of six 20mm barrels, one above the other (I forgot the name, though).


Because it takes up much more room, is much heavier, and provides a marginal increase in effectiveness.


Return to “World Navies Today”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest