Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The U.S. Army Will Pit Two Light Tank Designs Against One Another

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Asheren View Post

    If i do remmember correctly the new 40mm is actualy more close to 76mm but with better ROF.
    Supposed to have the punch of former 90mm guns.
    But you know, between technical leaflets and operational reality....

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

      Supposed to have the punch of former 90mm guns.
      But you know, between technical leaflets and operational reality....
      This is why i went with more sceptical outlook of 76mm. Either way it seem idea is that 40mm with modern ammo is enough to defeat any light tank/IFV including Russian wonder toys. In same time if you ecounter MTB you still have ATGM to give yourself a fighting chance.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Asheren View Post

        This is why i went with more sceptical outlook of 76mm. Either way it seem idea is that 40mm with modern ammo is enough to defeat any light tank/IFV including Russian wonder toys. In same time if you ecounter MTB you still have ATGM to give yourself a fighting chance.

        We learned in desert storm that the Bushmaster could defeat tanks. So a modern 40MM will probably be able to do the trick as well.

        Comment


        • #49
          Really, we are talking about modern combat standards as determined by a modern, luxury afforded military force, like the US or Europe. The economy of casualties seems to be the rule while no-price is too high for the technology to reduce combat personnel losses. However, the "crude" type mass enemy- fighting more like partisans that real military, seem to have decided the opposite- economy of weapons and material can be accepted so long as you are willing to spend mass casualties. They find thousands willing to die for a cause while we are willing to accommodate their battle dogma by killing as many as they can find to send against the modern meat grinders.

          Of course, this disparity of battle doctrine seems to only work out well for either side in the specific battle environment; clearly, the hi-tech army will prevail in open environments while the low tech side will be more successful in urban environments crowded with both cover and concealment. Engagement ranges are critical- High tech is hampered by the ultra-close range the low tech force is much better at fighting in.

          So, - what high-tech force is prepared to go against another high-tech force? In my estimation, nearly all high-techs have been fighting the low techs so long, they have almost completely reorganized their docrtine, equipment and training to focus on the low-techs. Really, it might be considered big battle, line-drawn wars are obsolete. (That is a fallacy- but I make it here to make a point) in the minds of modern high-tech planners. They have kept the anachronistic weapons of the cold war active such as the nuclear subs and the old ICBMs around as a kind of old buffalo gun hanging above the mantel as a "Just-In-Case" measure. But, yet, nagging at the back of their minds, they keep thinking they can also keep masses of super tanks" and other heavy equipment standing by that might be needed someday in such a remote chance of the "Big War"- even though, no sides have the manpower, will or doctrine these days to engage in such a conflict. This mindset results in weapons being designed to accomplish both tasks- fight hi-tech/hi-tech and hi-tech/lo tech wars. And as usual, this results in the hi-tech weapons being unsuitable for either task.
          __________________________________________________ ____________>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          Now, if you read through all that shit- you can understand why I am advocating to initiate weapons specifically designed to engage these lo-tech high/casualty type fights that enemy modern forces are now fighting. What type of fight do these partisan forces want to fight? They are designed to fight as partisans- hiding within the civilian populations is the war the hi-techs seem incapable of engaging with. Hi-techs have got to decide if they want to go in and sort these bad guys out, doing the dreadful human work remote control machines are incapable of. That means bringing human fighters nose-to-nose with self-sacrificing, bold, deadly other human fighters. No one seems ready to do that or design technology that will give these human-to-human fighters the edge they need.

          Thus it is I have suggested clumsy, as-usual "LT" designs are inadequate. I say a very fast, highly mobile, one or two-man crew very light but hard-hitting design, with massive man-killing firepower. They must be used like mechanized infantry. But, we have got to quit ganging up whole squads of men inside expensive, and relatively few PC type vehicles that are so easily killed by cheap IEDs and RPGs (MANPATs). Assaulting urban fighters with masses of deadly little chariots would absolutely terrify them. Getting the well trained and equipped men up front and personal with these urban fighters would be paramount and if they wanted to neutralize an apartment block full of partisans, they should have the capability of doing that instantly upon seeing the enemy position without a call back to Florida or Naples to consult a fucking lawyer to get permission to do it. We have to quit thinking of light tanks as support vehicles for infantry. The design should be such that they are just another piece of light infantry equipment- Each man (or two) would have his own vehicle to get him safe right up front and balls-to-balls with those bad guys. At which point they dismount and head straight into the enemy stronghold with rifles, just like infantry are supposed to do.

          Imagine riding such a vehicle force into Falluja or Hue or Mogadishu - and being willing to take the casualties to engage that enemy ruthlessly. Modern nations have completely lost the whole concept of what war is- war is to utterly fucking kill the other guys- TO KILL THEM! As political system start thinking of wars as "Police Actions", or "Pacification Projects" or "Nation Building" and that the enemy population is somehow separate from the enemy regime it supports, they make war much more palatable and thus more plentiful and miserable. Their economy of casualties is absurd in the light of those idiotic views since such ideas only draw out wars into never-ending slow bleeding wounds that never heal. How long has Afghanistan gone on? ISIS was a rag-tag absurdity of an enemy that was allowed to gain strength only because the modern allied armies found themselves helpless to engage an enemy so deeply mixed in the civilian population. ISIS survived because the only weapons the Hi-Techs had to fight them were stand-off, big-blow-up automated hugely expensive weapons and were reluctant to engage such a ruthless enemy man-to-man and casualty-to-casualty. The Hi-Techs want war, but do not want blood. So they end up trying to kill ants with sledgehammers. That is never going to fucking work!

          So, our job as key-board warriors, if we decide to take it on, is to find new ideas, new technology, a new doctrine, new everything to fight this kind of war and forget about all that other useless bullshit.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Soldat_Américain View Post
            We learned in desert storm that the Bushmaster could defeat tanks. So a modern 40MM will probably be able to do the trick as well.
            A burst from a 30mm autocannon (like 2A42) or a shot from an RPG-7 could also defeat most currently fielded tanks (the former is true on paper, the latter we have evidence of from Yemen and elsewhere).......if the enemy tanks are outmanoeuvred and hit in the sides. However, nobody should be relying on such fortuitous circumstances, especially against a peer or near-peer adversary. This is why guns (or ammunition) of each new generation of AFVs are typically designed to defeat the frontal armour of prospective enemy vehicles.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mastermind View Post
              Thus it is I have suggested clumsy, as-usual "LT" designs are inadequate. I say a very fast, highly mobile, one or two-man crew very light but hard-hitting design, with massive man-killing firepower. They must be used like mechanized infantry.
              I always envisioned a vehicle that has a driver and gunner(commander) and 4 dismounts. The vehicle is wheeled, 4 are fine, 6 if needed due to the weight. I mention weight as I want some good armor on it, but also a turret with a 30mm cannon (35 or 40 is fine, if it can be fitted) and a container for missiles.

              The missiles space would be standard, room for two pods, each being able to use: one anti-tank, or one anti-air (of limited range), or 4 rockets (think US Hydra 70 type and size).

              Put a lot of sensors on each vehicle to the point that any vehicles can take care of reconnaissance.

              The important part is that I would change the number of vehicles per platoon from 4 to 6 (or even 8) and use them as a light cavalry/hussars. The company would roll in and roll out in massive numbers, giving you a lot of vehicles to maneuver and to base your tactics.

              The recon capabilities of each vehicle means you get a lot more organic information and I would focus on mobility (think US cavalry in the old west). The 30mm cannons would take care of most things while the rockets could take care of bunkers that need a bigger bang. The antitank missile would allow you to safely engage heavy armor from afar (if needed) and the odd anti-air missile here and there would allow you to keep helicopters at bay (anti-air ammunition for the 30mm gun will also help).

              The French EBRC Jaguar is the closest thing to what I have in mind, but I still want 4 dismount troops per vehicle.

              So this is what I would have in mind from a Light Tank type vehicle. I think we have the same thing in mind.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by BogT View Post

                I always envisioned a vehicle that has a driver and gunner(commander) and 4 dismounts. The vehicle is wheeled, 4 are fine, 6 if needed due to the weight. I mention weight as I want some good armor on it, but also a turret with a 30mm cannon (35 or 40 is fine, if it can be fitted) and a container for missiles.

                The missiles space would be standard, room for two pods, each being able to use: one anti-tank, or one anti-air (of limited range), or 4 rockets (think US Hydra 70 type and size).

                Put a lot of sensors on each vehicle to the point that any vehicles can take care of reconnaissance.

                The important part is that I would change the number of vehicles per platoon from 4 to 6 (or even 8) and use them as a light cavalry/hussars. The company would roll in and roll out in massive numbers, giving you a lot of vehicles to maneuver and to base your tactics.

                The recon capabilities of each vehicle means you get a lot more organic information and I would focus on mobility (think US cavalry in the old west). The 30mm cannons would take care of most things while the rockets could take care of bunkers that need a bigger bang. The antitank missile would allow you to safely engage heavy armor from afar (if needed) and the odd anti-air missile here and there would allow you to keep helicopters at bay (anti-air ammunition for the 30mm gun will also help).

                The French EBRC Jaguar is the closest thing to what I have in mind, but I still want 4 dismount troops per vehicle.

                So this is what I would have in mind from a Light Tank type vehicle. I think we have the same thing in mind.
                I did read long time ago study about 2 man vs 3 man and the overall result was that to get best bang for buck 3 man crew is a must have.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I dont know about the lack of main guns. This is why the PA is getting serious with tanks s they keep finding 90mm and below to be virtually useless in bunker busting. Most of the houses here are cement with rebar enforced along with cement blocks. Reports of the PA using artillery as direct fire to penetrate the bunkers are rife after 2000

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Junglejim View Post
                    I don't know about the lack of main guns. This is why the PA is getting serious with tanks s they keep finding 90mm and below to be virtually useless in bunker busting. Most of the houses here are cement with rebar enforced along with cement blocks. Reports of the PA using artillery as direct fire to penetrate the bunkers are rife after 2000
                    I see your point on a vehicle that would be fighting monolithically. But, don't forget about the combined arms still available. And the idea that each 'chariot' would have some 175mm or bigger launchers- probably about 4. and there would be a whole mess of these 'chariots' running around- Think of them like armored knights of old but with the capability of dropping that armor once they are face-to-face with the enemy. Smash open their hiding spots and then knife them to death.

                    Actually, the vehicle that impressed me the most was the Rip Saw by Howe & Howe. Yes, I know it is an absurd thing as a "tank" or a PC.

                    But, the Chariot only has to carry the usual weapons the infantryman carries x like 5. The two-man crew is actually infantry. The Chariot is there only give them their protection, mobility and firepower as they close the light infantry-type partisan enemy and to give them the ability to individually deal with enemy armor and fortified positions. And, as Junglejim has pointed out the wonderful capacity to carry all sorts of recc and commo equipment, uploading directly to C&C and to each other and their unit commanders. The Chariot force commander and his control teams have unprecedented battlefield ground level information coming into them in real time! Their command screens show almost perfect aerial views of each individual unit, what it is firing and what it is firing at, it's battle-worthiness, etc.

                    Take a squad of 13 of these things forming a platoon of 51 units with one company being about 215 units with support vehicles carrying resupply and light direct fire support- say 14 models of something like the old Ontos M-50 (I said "something Like"...so don't get your panties in a wad) and a couple of recovery vehicles, perhaps some bridging equipment and a few engineers with demolitions. Total personnel per company about 600- Yikes! Huge company, eh? Like I said- I'm thinking out of the box here.

                    A village is fortified- 1000 enemy fighters with 45 or so RPG men. Suddenly, three companies of Chariots are seen rushing their line after the bad guys have taken a pretty good aerial or Arty workover. A rain of direct fire pours in. Their MANPAT guys are overwhelmed with targets- all fast-moving, constantly moving...the Partisans fire and get 12% hits, but it has no effect on the rapidly closing attack. Their riflemen fire, but find their fire is totally ineffective. In almost no time, the Chariots are through their barricades, dozens of them, machinegunning everything and everyone. The enemy is now cut into several sections, separated. Bunches claw for cover, but, then they find the enemy infantry is right among them- Some Chariots are providing dismounted squads of advancing trained infantry with heavy machine gun support, others have already established protected zones, with HQs. The fight is now desperate. The enemy commander has no idea what has happened - the situation has changed so rapidly he has lost C&C- his teams have no cohesive picture of the battel or even where their own forces are, The deadly enemy is among them, identifying hardened targets, and bunched up enemy squads hiding in houses- Their AT guys are confused and running, abandoning their equipment. An enemy squad hides in a house, but two Chariots appear in front and hit the house with 8 ea 175 mm dual-purpose warhead rockets. Instantly after the explosions, the enemy infantry is at the blasted doors firing into them. Outside, Chariots are zipping around seeking more targets. when they find them, some of the Chariot crews dismount attacking like infantry while others offer the usual heavy and close support There is no escape, nowhere to run for the enemy. It is over except for mopping up.

                    That might be the type of experience against such a massed Armored Infantry Chariot attack the enemy would get. How do you defend against that? They might use ditches, mines, gasoline grenades (Molotov Cocktails), wires, hundreds instead of fives of RPGs? If the chariots are resistant to direct 20mm fire, you have to have lots and lots of heavier stuff- normally not available to partisan light infantry type forces You certainly will not have enough expensive, heavy hitting MANPATs available to do any good.

                    Yes, the Chariot force receives casualties- perhaps 12 or 18 Chariots destroyed, 30 damaged/repairable, and 60 men dead with 100 wounded- 600 Chariots attacked that day using air and helicopter support as needed to chase the fleeing enemy. Yikes, 8% casualties in men. By modern standards, that is outrageous. Less than 1% is hardly acceptable these days! One guy falls and breaks his neck and back home it is headlined for a week! So, that attitude has to change. You can end this war quickly and go home, or you can fuck around with it and slowly get bled to death and bankrupted!

                    And oh- did I mention that membership in a Chariot unit would be about the most fun any 21-year-old kid ever had in his life without women?
                    Last edited by Mastermind; 13-01-2019, 06:12 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Soldat_Américain View Post


                      We learned in desert storm that the Bushmaster could defeat tanks. So a modern 40MM will probably be able to do the trick as well.
                      Against bad crews/bad vehicles
                      I won't bet against a modern armed force and/or a well trained one
                      If it was so easy the Bradly won't have been fitted with ATGMs, nor the Marder nor the BMP1/2/3
                      Yes you have few nations that have IFVs lacking ATGM (Warrior for UK, VBCI for France) but we have different doctrine of use and armor mixes

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by BogT View Post

                        I always envisioned a vehicle that has a driver and gunner(commander) and 4 dismounts. The vehicle is wheeled, 4 are fine, 6 if needed due to the weight. I mention weight as I want some good armor on it, but also a turret with a 30mm cannon (35 or 40 is fine, if it can be fitted) and a container for missiles.

                        The missiles space would be standard, room for two pods, each being able to use: one anti-tank, or one anti-air (of limited range), or 4 rockets (think US Hydra 70 type and size).

                        Put a lot of sensors on each vehicle to the point that any vehicles can take care of reconnaissance.

                        The important part is that I would change the number of vehicles per platoon from 4 to 6 (or even 8) and use them as a light cavalry/hussars. The company would roll in and roll out in massive numbers, giving you a lot of vehicles to maneuver and to base your tactics.

                        The recon capabilities of each vehicle means you get a lot more organic information and I would focus on mobility (think US cavalry in the old west). The 30mm cannons would take care of most things while the rockets could take care of bunkers that need a bigger bang. The antitank missile would allow you to safely engage heavy armor from afar (if needed) and the odd anti-air missile here and there would allow you to keep helicopters at bay (anti-air ammunition for the 30mm gun will also help).

                        The French EBRC Jaguar is the closest thing to what I have in mind, but I still want 4 dismount troops per vehicle.

                        So this is what I would have in mind from a Light Tank type vehicle. I think we have the same thing in mind.
                        You are mixing too much roles, a jack all trade ends to be too expensive for each of its specific role it won't achieve as well as dedicated vehicles
                        A reco vehicle doesn't need big guns, it needs the most complete suit of sensors, EW stuff, com and stealth features
                        4 dismounted troops is too few for most things and too many for others.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Junglejim View Post
                          I dont know about the lack of main guns. This is why the PA is getting serious with tanks s they keep finding 90mm and below to be virtually useless in bunker busting. Most of the houses here are cement with rebar enforced along with cement blocks. Reports of the PA using artillery as direct fire to penetrate the bunkers are rife after 2000
                          20/25 even 30 mm proved to be too weak (in Astan/Mali) to breach mud walls
                          in Syria the SAA used its T72 125 mm but also its SPG 122 and 152 mm for direct fire
                          Engineer armor fitted with breaching guns are the way to go but they are vulnerable in an urban situation. There is no easy answer for all situations. Adaptability with what you have at hands is the best answer given you have something that will work. Of course if you are short of anything, answer would be difficult

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Some seem to be forgetting what this vehicle is for, which is to provide a "Light" Infantry Brigade a mobile protected fire support platform to support maneuver etc. It's not turn them into mech or motorized formations or something completely new. At only 14 vehicle per brigade its intended to not have a massive logistical impact on a deploying light brigade. Having light tanks on line with the brigade to operate and train with that are internally logistically supported makes sense versus occasionally getting a troop or squadron of tanks attached that requires their own logistical support and have no familiarity or integration with the troops they are supporting.

                            The 105mm is a well proven and effective system and would over lap well with the other direct and indirect fire capabilities of the brigade support weapon Platoons but not replace them. Given the intended platforms it would be able to support and follow the dismounts onto the objective. They both look to be fairly mobile an some of the limitations in armor protection could be mitigated or accepted with ERA and active or passive protection systems. The 105mm may also provide a good solution to the becoming more common use of converted AFV's/MRAP's as VBIED's. It takes time to spool up ATGW's and get a shooting solution and you may only get one shot and small arms only has so much target end effect.

                            Are they are perfect solution? Probably not but being from a Light Inf background, I sure wouldn't turn them down.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by gafkiwi View Post
                              Some seem to be forgetting what this vehicle is for, which is to provide a "Light" Infantry Brigade a mobile protected fire support platform to support maneuver etc. It's not turn them into mech or motorized formations or something completely new. At only 14 vehicle per brigade its intended to not have a massive logistical impact on a deploying light brigade. Having light tanks on line with the brigade to operate and train with that are internally logistically supported makes sense versus occasionally getting a troop or squadron of tanks attached that requires their own logistical support and have no familiarity or integration with the troops they are supporting.

                              The 105mm is a well proven and effective system and would over lap well with the other direct and indirect fire capabilities of the brigade support weapon Platoons but not replace them. Given the intended platforms it would be able to support and follow the dismounts onto the objective. They both look to be fairly mobile an some of the limitations in armor protection could be mitigated or accepted with ERA and active or passive protection systems. The 105mm may also provide a good solution to the becoming more common use of converted AFV's/MRAP's as VBIED's. It takes time to spool up ATGW's and get a shooting solution and you may only get one shot and small arms only has so much target end effect.

                              Are they are perfect solution? Probably not but being from a Light Inf background, I sure wouldn't turn them down.

                              The sad truth is that no "light" AFV will be able to offer adequate survivability on modern battlefields. It seems unlikely that a vehicle can be designed in the sub-30-ton range which can also withstand glacis-plate or frontal turret impacts from the main guns of MBTs at typical engagement ranges (unless certain design decisions are adopted to limit the internal space and therefore the dimensions of the vehicle such as a decreased crew complement, or an unmanned turret). Simply put, no "light tank" will be able to perform the role of a conventional MBT in modern combat environments. The only reason Russia has light AFVs such as BMD, Sprut, Nona, etc... is for a very specific purpose, to equip the airborne troops. This is why the physical parameters of these vehicles, such as weight and dimensions, are tightly constrained such that these vehicles can fit inside transport aviation, be able to be deployed via parachute, and be amphibious.

                              So unless light tanks are being designed with a very specific purpose and under very tight parameter constrains (deployed via parachute, be amphibious, etc....), there really is no good reason why an existing vehicle cannot suffice for light infantry brigades. For example, something like a modified Stryker MGS should be more than adequate at providing the required mobile fire support for infantry.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by ak16 View Post


                                The sad truth is that no "light" AFV will be able to offer adequate survivability on modern battlefields. It seems unlikely that a vehicle can be designed in the sub-30-ton range which can also withstand glacis-plate or frontal turret impacts from the main guns of MBTs at typical engagement ranges (unless certain design decisions are adopted to limit the internal space and therefore the dimensions of the vehicle such as a decreased crew complement, or an unmanned turret). Simply put, no "light tank" will be able to perform the role of a conventional MBT in modern combat environments. The only reason Russia has light AFVs such as BMD, Sprut, Nona, etc... is for a very specific purpose, to equip the airborne troops. This is why the physical parameters of these vehicles, such as weight and dimensions, are tightly constrained such that these vehicles can fit inside transport aviation, be able to be deployed via parachute, and be amphibious.

                                So unless light tanks are being designed with a very specific purpose and under very tight parameter constrains (deployed via parachute, be amphibious, etc....), there really is no good reason why an existing vehicle cannot suffice for light infantry brigades. For example, something like a modified Stryker MGS should be more than adequate at providing the required mobile fire support for infantry.
                                Why would they be trying to design a sub 30-ton vehicle be able to survive a hit from an MBT? It can't be done with out too greater cost in other areas. What they are after is a mobile protected gun system to support light units providing direct fire support, not to be an MBT or go toe to toe with them. They have weight restrictions as a left and right for air portability by C17 but no Air dropped capability requirement as it would be at too greater weight/protection cost to be achieved. The rumored requirement of being protected against 30mm fire pretty much rules out the MGS besides the fact there is only so much protection/upgrades you can add to the Stryker chassis before it breaks or can't move. MGS also operates in a motorized environment where everyone else is motorized and have .50's or AGL's and are also used in conjunction with Anti tank Strykers. By virtue of supporting dismounted or light Infantry these will be expected to be exposed to a greater degree of enemy fire which will need to be mitigated within reason.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X