SV: AFV Recognition

htm
Message-id: 39e3f758.6064.0@dynamite.com.au
X-User-Info: 210.8.224.2
Sender: owner-gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu

> Probably the M-84 (picture taken directly from the side, and with not

That's the one, yes.

> The Ikv-91 is much cuter than any

Funnily enough, we don't get many Ikv-91s in this neck of the woods. Nor
M-84s
for that matter. Now Type 59s, 69-Is, 69-IIs etc are a different matter.

> Yep. The page recognises that too (fortunately <g>)... I suspect that

Concur. It was so much easier when square-turret = ours, round = theirs.
But with Black Eagle even that's changed.

> Yes... he didn't give any NATO designations exept for the HIND-D, did

True-ish. BMD, BMP are fairly standard, (though how many know that the D
is for Desantya <sp?>).

One thing that's almost vaguely on-topic: the design for the Combine
Light Tank for OGRE is very reminiscent of the good old S tank. Or at least,
the few rare ones I have are. But then again, so's the old GW plastic Eldar
Falcon.

> Alan Brain wrote:

> BTW, there's a set of vehicle recognition tests on-line at

Probably the M-84 (picture taken directly from the side, and with not
very many details showing). The Ikv-91 is much cuter than any
T-something <g> (Then again, I might be biased in this case...)

> Of course the days when you could say Western=Friend, Eastern=Foe >are

Yep. The page recognises that too (fortunately <g>)... I suspect that IFF gear
is going to get a lot more important in the future, when both
sides use ex-Soviet vehicles :-/

> but only 33 of 40 in the naming tests.

> I'm reminded about Oscar Wilde's (?) comment on the Kama Sutra: >that

<chuckle> Something like that, yes...

> And I know several of the vehicles by a different nomenclature - so I

Yes... he didn't give any NATO designations exept for the HIND-D, did
he.