MC: Tanks using Snorkels

Volcano Man · 03-26-2008, 11:29 AM,

I don't see why you are getting upset (at least it seems that way to me), I was only kidding because the post switched from snorkels to now TIS equipped T-80s (hence the ;) ).

But your "let's forget that all the Russian tanks have this capability to snorkel" comment is a little perplexing. Yes, Russian tanks *do* have the capability to stick a pipe on their engine and drive into the water and *hope* that they come out alive on the other side. But so does just about every other NATO vehicle in existence. Should they too have the amphibious flag? 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.

CptCav · 03-26-2008, 12:28 PM,

Might as well code the M60A1/3 as amphibious too. It was snorkel capable. But, I sure would not go under water in a tank from my platoon. Eek

Even if I was sure that the turret ring seals had not rotted, which I was not.

Regards,
CptCav

Al · 03-26-2008, 12:43 PM,

CptCav Wrote:Might as well code the M60A1/3 as amphibious too. It was snorkel capable. But, I sure would not go under water in a tank from my platoon. Even if I was sure that the turret ring seals had not rotted, which I was not.

Regards,
CptCav

I never heard of that; that is I didn't know that the M60A1/A3 even had the "snorkel" equipment manufactured. I'll have to look that up in my references.

HirooOnoda · 03-26-2008, 02:06 PM,

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? Eek

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.

Volcano Man · (This post was last modified: 03-26-2008, 03:32 PM by Volcano Man.)

JonS1 Wrote:...This is, incidentally, exactly why DD equipped units in the various PzC editions should NOT have the amphib flag checked. The DD capability was used - as far as I'm aware - exactly twice...

I must of missed this post earlier. I agree. I was not aware that any DD tanks in PzC had the amphibious flag but I see now that N44 has always had it since v1.0. I guess I never noticed it before but you are right, as soon as the DD tanks landed this clumsy equipment was removed and they were not special river crossing tanks able to say, cross the Orne later on.

CptCav · (This post was last modified: 03-26-2008, 05:35 PM by CptCav.)

Al Wrote:I never heard of that; that is I didn't know that the M60A1/A3 even had the "snorkel" equipment manufactured. I'll have to look that up in my references.

You know what, I think that I am thinking of the fording kit. I guess "old-timers" is getting to me. Although, I don't know why, but I seem to recall a tower that went over the commander's cupola. I don't recall how it fitted over it though.

Regards,
CptCav

scarletto7 · 03-26-2008, 11:35 PM,

In the late 70s and 80s, we only had a few vehicles in the British Army which had the capability to cross rivers, the Scorpion and Scimitar had screens that i guess were similar to the old DD tanks of WW2. I had the dubious pleasure of one day trying this out, of 4 scimitars, 3 sank or founded and the other went sailing downstream until recovered :)

I know for a fact through my service, that the WP would have used Snorkel tanks, only if and i mean a very big IF, every bridge had been blown and all their bridging capabilities had been lost. The time constraints to ensure that each tank was capable, the fact that Nato would have been plastering the area etc etc, means that its a no-no. They just couldnt turn up and drive across, it took an average of an hour to prepare a T-80 for river crossing, in a war zone!!!! impossible.

The Russians btw did back-engine TIS, but couldnt produce it in the 80s, though one of the Guards units did have the mountings and casing it was empty inside :)

Oh and hello, just joined :)

Tortue Agile · 03-27-2008, 12:25 AM,

scarletto7 Wrote:Oh and hello, just joined :)

Welcome!

HirooOnoda · 03-27-2008, 01:21 AM,

scarletto7 Wrote:I know for a fact through my service, that the WP would have used Snorkel tanks, only if and i mean a very big IF, every bridge had been blown and all their bridging capabilities had been lost. The time constraints to ensure that each tank was capable, the fact that Nato would have been plastering the area etc etc, means that its a no-no. They just couldnt turn up and drive across, it took an average of an hour to prepare a T-80 for river crossing, in a war zone!!!! impossible.

The Russians btw did back-engine TIS, but couldnt produce it in the 80s, though one of the Guards units did have the mountings and casing it was empty inside :)

Wow, after I read this one could tie me down and make me eat a bug.

Logic would dictate that this is the logical assumption.

scarletto7 · 03-27-2008, 05:24 AM,

Carrying on with the snorkel theme, the WP placed great reliance on capturing bridges,and certain airborne units as we know were tasked with this, the sole reason was because of the capability of their snorkelling vehicles. It was rubbish :)

The films they produced showing snorkelling tanks was as has been said stage managed, not for Nato, but more for their own side (look at us we can do anything) and by that i mean their 'Allies'. Which is why so much was tied into Bridge guard and Demolition tasks for Nato troops. For us 'cold war warriors' how many river bank guards did you do compared to bridge guard?? If like me it was none, that shows you how much we feared snorkelling tanks :happy:

In the games of modern campaigns,would make more sense adding it as a variable/what-if, along with the fact that all Nato Hqs would be found by lousy radio comms, one exercise held in 81? a troop of boy soldiers spent a week on a hill, and found out everything from 90% of units, all supposedly on radio silence!!!