Volcano Man Wrote:With that logic then every vehicle in the OOB should have the amphibious flag and It would be just as incorrect (IMO) as the T-80 having the TIS. But that is all I will say on the subject.
Let's continue to beat this horse a little more, eh?
Being capable and being trained are two things. NATO tanks sure are capable, but most of the tankers on this board it would appear haven't done this procedure.
Now I didn't serve in the Soviet Army, and unless we actually have a WP tanker or two who did serve to counter your's and others claim that the snorkeling wouldn't occur, I think it is premature to rule out this capability.
A. Given that NATO wouldn't be fighting on the defensive, it is quite logical that they would have the bridges to cross over intact as they retreated. Thus why bother training with snorkels when you have the bridges to drive over?
B. Given that the Warsaw Pact would be on the offensive, it is pretty safe to say that most of the bridges would not be intact, thus the need for snorkel equipped tanks.
Now I'm not disputing that driving a 50 ton tank underwater isnt' dangerous, far from it, but it would appear that given the number of pictures of WP soviet tanks I've seen for over 20 years with snorkels and you-tube videos of their tanks actually snorkeling I think it is unwise to dismiss out of hand the posibility that some of their elite crews would have been trained in this skill.
What I don't get is the hostility this mere question seems to bring out from members of this list.
I think it is a fair question that should be explored instead of just dismissed out of hand.
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
