pretend for a moment that the aussies are really going to do some tank on tank action either independently or in support of US forces.

what ammo do you think they will have then?

Yesssss

Touche' Sir, touche'.

TOWs were taking out tanks.  They happen to have been launched from Bradleys.

If they try that stunt against decent tanks with competent (read: non-Arab) crews, it won't be near so lop-sided.

If you want something to deploy with airborne and to fight tanks you want something with a very low profile (not a Bradley), that doesn't waste scarce space on a chain gun, its turret, ammo , & FCS (again, not a Bradley) or a troop-carrying capacity (again, not a Bradley)

Some sort of short tank-destroyer type vehicle.

Thread needs more tank porn.

The mighty M8 AGS!!!!!!

Hmm. Something like this maybe.  

My guess is that maybe it's not armored enough or too heavy or big for the Airborne role.

I wouldn't really call it an issue of "optimization".  If you look at penetration guesstimates for the latest German Tungsten KE ammo (DM53) fired out of an L/44 and the latest M829A3 rounds, the difference is 10 or 20mm in favor of the DU round.  It's almost the same, penetration wise, but the DU would have better behind armor effects because it burns.

The L/55 gives a little bit more power to KE rounds.  It might also be less accurate when firing on the move, and perhaps have some other qualities that make it less desirable than you might think.  Again, I'd like to point out than many Leopard 2 users are quite happy with the L/44 main guns...Like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and so on.

In terms of interoperability, although the Aussies might not currently be using DU rounds, nothing prevents them from storing the data in their fire control computers so that they could easily load up with them and shoot them in a wartime scenario.

The armor package is the part that I can't wrap my head around.  I REALLY hope that they found an alternative material (like Tungsten) and built them up with that instead of plain old A1 armor.

...until those tanks stand off just outside javelin range and start peppering your postition with HE ....

Going back a few years, I had a friend who was a Dutch tank commander, he loved the Leopard 2A5's but disliked the 2A6's due to the larger dispersion and accuracy issues the longer tubes brought. I had forgotten about that.

... because our friends, the French or the Russians themselves would NEVER sell upgrades to Soviet FCS that include good thermals and optics - right?

Let's not forget, this is awesome,





Until it meets this...

I was under the impression modern ATGMs had superior standoff to tank guns.

Pop quiz:  artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ......

Won't work.  The reason the GAU-8 works against tanks is they can beat through the top armor.  Much easier to target the roof from an airplane.

Yup, look for even more French optics and other systems to start showing up in Russian systems. I was talking with Steve Zaloga last week and he had just returned from the big air show in Russia and we discussed how the Russians and French are building a major relationship in regards to defense tech these days. One need only look as far as the new Russian 8 wheeled APC they unveiled. He also said their new MBT is going to be incorporating a lot of western features. They have learned that in order to compete on the moderns arms market, the old ways just don't work anymore when the world is awash in surplus Leopard 2A4s and M1's and the T series tanks have abysmal reputations in combat.

Not Javelins.  Plus some Sov tanks can fire indirect fire, like ours used to.  Plus modern Sov tanks have gun launched ATGMs that have 4 - 5 km ranges.  Tanks are soclial critters - they come in packs, with friends.  So say you take one out at 4 km with a TOW - what do you think the reaction of the rest of the tank company will be?  Do you suppose they might take some action to discourage asecond shot?

As well as rocket artillery that blankets entire grid squares.

The M8 AGS is ready to go.  It can be dropped from a C-130, armor can be added once on the ground, and it can fire 105mm DU KE rounds which are still effective against older MBTs that remain in large numbers around the world by nations that we could find ourselves fighting.  

The Army had already incorporated the M8 into it's doctrine when it was stupidly cancelled.  

Just fucking buy it.  It's better than the M551 could ever have hoped to be with its lousy FCS and the problems associated with it.

Is this before or after blowing up the rail car containing the picture of the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?

The ADF wants interoperability. The Labor government wants putative "independence" and to be able to call the Liberals American Puppets. There is no such thing as a good dead on Euro sourced arms. Even the Leo2s were a loss-leader.

Smoke screens wont help them

iirc, the Army was running some tests with the CV90120 not too long ago...







not sure about the weight but its low profile, has a 120mm cannon and armor that protects against 30mm rounds

 

That's an attractive option if it meets the criteria for being able to be dropped from a C-130.  The 120mm main gun would make it more competitive against modern armor, and the engine located in the front of the hull would add mass against penetration by HEAT and some KE rounds.  The layout makes more sense actually, given the limitations of weight imposed upon the design due to tactical requirements.

I retract my previous nomination of the Ontos.

Wait, no I don't.

Get both!

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

I think it's also important to remember that for airborne troops, tanks provide far more than just anti tank capability. Javelins work great for anti tank work in 99% of situations, but what happens if you need to break down a wall, or reduce an obstacle? Sure you have things like SMAW-D's and AT4's and maybe if they stick around Carl Gustav's, but that still requires a guy to bring it into action. I think an airborne force with limited tanks would work quite well simply because unlike mech heavy forces, both sides, the DAT's and the crunchies need eachother to survive.

The biggest problem I see is that we've become to risk averse that the idea of a light tank that can't withstand RPG-29's, Konkurs missiles, and giant IED's will be laughed away.

Here's a question for the paratroopers and tankers in the group. In WWII we found that M22's and Tetrach airborne tanks had big issues when their running gear got entangled in parachute lines rendering them immobile on the drop zones. Something like an M8 AGS would have to be LAPES'ed or quickly deployed from an dirt strip, would this be an issue anymore? We are also talking much more powerful vehicles, I've personally worked on the restoration of an M22 and it was god damned tiny and not all that powerful so I can see that being an issue with them but is that an issue with larger tracked vehicles?

That's not smoke, it's a Shotra Active Defense System.

I do believe it was the Sweede's who trialed rubber band tracks on their CV9040's in Afghanistan with positive results. Personally I'd love to see the CV9030 in US service but that's not happening any time soon.

How many Firescouts can you get in a C-130?  When you look at this set of requirements:

 C-130 droppable
 Offroad mobility
 Ability to destroy emplacements and LAVs
 Survivability against anti-armor weapons

That's a tall order... I don't know if a ground vehicle can realistically be expected to fulfill them.  A small swarm of semi-autonomous (robot doing the flying, person doing the shooting) armed helicopters buzzing around a battlefield might  be the closest fit.

That would also be a great option

I can't find any specs for C-130, but the CV90120-T is air portable via A400, not sure how that translates to C-130.

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/cv90120t.htm

medium armored arv ftw.

Special Operations Forces in Iraq
By Leigh Neville

Delta's SR indicated that a much bigger force would be needed to seize it, and a request was made and approved for a second Delta squadron from Fort Bragg to be  dispatched along with a battalion of Rangers and a company of M1A1 Abrams MBTs from C Co, 2/70 Armor. The tanks, soon to be termed "Team Tank," were flown in C17s from Tallil to H-1 and on to Mission Support Site Grizzly, a desert strip established by Delta located between the dam and Tikrit.  

=  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =  =

The Haditha Dam Seizure: The Taking of Objective Cobalt - Part 3
BY JOHN D. GRESHAM - MAY 12, 2010

With the top of the dam now clear, 2nd/B moved to their blocking positions at the northeast end. About the same time, 3rd/C began to move down into Objective Cobalt, on the river level below the dam face. Led by Staff Sgt. Jesse Ragan, 3rd/C moved down a steep access road into the objective area. Running into a strong Iraqi blocking force, Capt. Brad Thompson ordered the platoon to regroup before renewing the assault. Ordering his 1st squad to lay down suppressive fire, the other two squads moved up and took a number of the guard force personnel prisoner. As the force moved forward, one GMV took a wrong turn and wound up getting badly shot up, with the driver wounded but still in action. As the GMV reversed direction, the gunner manning the Mk 19 40 mm automatic grenade launcher took a point-blank hit from an AK-47 as the vehicle escaped.

Relating the incident later, Cpl. John Gale (pseudonym) said, “I was facing forward when I felt this blow to my lower left back. Looking down I could see that I had been hit, but that the round had hit the “last chance” plate on the back of my body armor. Seeing that I had not been hurt, I got back onto my weapon and helped get us out of there. Later I found that the round had hit the plate around an inch up and in from the lower left corner, which was right over my left kidney. But for that, I would almost certainly be dead.”

The rest of 3rd/C continued to take heavy Iraqi fire from a pair of buildings, which would continue to be a problem for the next three days. The Rangers called in airstrikes, which hit the structures with a total of 20 bombs. The Iraqis, however, kept trying to get back to the dam. All day on April 1, groups of 50 to 100 Iraqi solders would form up in “human wave” attacks on 3rd/C, only to be beaten back by the two Ranger 120 mm mortar tubes, airstrikes, and accurate small arms fire. These attacks would continue to come every 30 minutes for the next two days.

Back up on top of the dam, 1st and 2nd/B were in their blocking positions and working on fortifying their various points of fire when the Iraqis facing them finally began to come to life. Ten Iraqi mortar tubes, along with dozens of machine guns and RPG launchers, opened up on the Rangers, sending them running for cover. Quickly regaining their composure, the Rangers returned fire and began to call in airstrikes to take out the mortar positions. It was a routine they would conduct many times over in the week ahead. Amazingly, none of the Rangers was hit. One particularly pesky mortar position, on an island about 2,000 yards behind the dam, was taken out with a Javelin anti-tank missile, along with a pair of 1,000-pound bombs. Later, the Iraqis tried to infiltrate some personnel near the bridge in a kayak and several small boats, which were promptly sunk.

Endurance: B Company Under Fire

Late on the April 1, Doyle was informed that the expected relief forces would be delayed, and he would have to “hold until relieved.” While clearly facing a tough job, Doyle was not without means to hold on. His lines of communication back to H-1 were open, he was getting regular replenishment of ammunition and other supplies, and his casualties and POWs were being promptly evacuated.

The real challenge was one of toughness and endurance, for as the sun set on April Fool’s Day 2003, he had no real idea when the 154 men in his force would be relieved. The biggest test of those Ranger qualities began late on April 2, when the first of over 350 Iraqi 155 mm artillery shells began to land around the dam complex. It was a barrage that would last almost 36 hours, and mixed with a steady stream of mortar shells, would strain the Rangers to the breaking point.

Combat stress trauma is hardly a new phenomenon. A side effect of extended exposure to enemy fire, especially artillery and mortars, it has the ability to disable even the most hardened veterans. By late on the evening of April 2, a number of Doyle’s Rangers were showing signs of the disorder, as shells fell steadily around their positions. Already tired from almost two weeks of continuous operations, and fully exposed to the elements and noise of the barrage, some of the young Rangers began to fall victim.

As one of them said later, “I remember just starting to ‘fold up,’ and fall in on myself. I think I just laid down in the corner of the position and stayed there for a while; how long I just don’t know. But then I began to fight my way back. I thought about the Ranger creed and all the other guys on the dam, and slowly started getting back in the fight. I’m not sure how long it took and how it happened, but I remember being back with my weapon and on the line sometime on the 3rd.”

Such mental toughness is almost impossible to comprehend, and one of the reasons, Doyle later said, “As the battle progressed, [the] Rangers showed why they are specially selected and that they are well trained. [My] Rangers learned that they could survive under constant enemy direct and indirect fire if they used their training and listened to their leaders. The pace of the combat was surprising. The days seemed to pass very quickly. We really gauged the passing of time by the consumption of our ammunition.”

Toughness aside, Doyle’s Rangers were also being proactive, helping beat back the Iraqi barrage. Since they did not have counterbattery radar, observers had to visually pick up mortar sites, observation posts, and artillery pieces one at a time, and guide airstrikes to take them out. While it took time, the Americans eventually wound up destroying 24 Iraqi mortars, 28 155 mm artillery pieces, and 23 AAA guns while on the dam. Twenty-nine tanks and three trucks also fell to the Ranger-directed airstrikes, along with 300 to 400 enemy killed by the time that they were relieved.

Hold Until Relieved

By the time that the Iraqi artillery and mortar barrage abated late on the April 3, Doyle and his men knew that they were in for a long stay. However, having steeled themselves through the barrage, none were interested in giving the facility back to the Iraqis. On April 5, no artillery was fired at the Rangers, and they began expand their perimeter from their original blocking positions. 3rd/C swept back down toward Objective Cobalt below the dam. When they took the two buildings where all the fire had come from on April 1, they found 12 large arms and ammunition storage rooms, along with an Iraqi command post complete with sand table map.


By April 6, 2003, reinforcements, including a brace of Abrams main battle tanks, began to arrive. U.S. Army photo.

By April 6, despite an occasional 155 mm artillery round lobbed into their positions, the Rangers had expanded their perimeter several thousand yards downstream. Best of all, reinforcements, initially in the form of a pair of M1A1 Abrams tanks, finally began to arrive. 3rd/B also arrived, and the pressure finally began to ease. The Rangers even reached out to several local clerics, who helped calm the local populace.

By their eighth day on the dam, Doyle’s remaining 150 men were finally relieved and being transported back to H-1. While several of the four Ranger casualties had been serious, helicopters from the 160th SOAR (some flying in broad daylight) had successfully evacuated them back to safety. Combined with Company A’s seizure of the Ramadi Highway Bridge to the south, the Rangers had taken control of all the Euphrates River crossings of importance in western Iraq. Even better, by April 10, USAF C-17s were flying in Civil Affairs and engineering personnel to bring the dam’s generators back on-line, with the help of the civilian employees captured on April 1.

Today, the capture of the Haditha High Dam is one of the most impressive examples of direct action by SOF units ever executed. Like the seizure of Point du Hoc and Pegasus Bridge on D-Day, Haditha Dam was executed with thunderclap surprise and audacity worthy of those who came before and wore the title of “Ranger.” And like the Mogadishu firefight in 1993, Haditha Dam tested the best in the 154 men who rushed Objectives Lynx and Cobalt. They were outnumbered and outgunned, and still stayed in the fight. And when unbearable conditions forced some to fall into themselves, those same Rangers fought to get back into the fight and help win a dramatic victory. It’s hardly surprising that the 75th Rangers were awarded the Valorous Unit Award, along with five Purple Hearts, four Silver and 26 Bronze Stars, and 71 Army Commendation Medals for the Haditha Dam action.

Insurgents have tried many times to attack, seize, and/or destroy both the Haditha Dam and Ramadi Bridge. Nevertheless, power continues to be generated, and road traffic passes over the Euphrates River every day. They are hardly targets of “no significance.” While the hindsight of bystanders is always 20/20, the crucible of battle makes the situation at the moment of truth far less certain for those in the fight.

This is the concluding Part 3 of Hold Until Relieved: The Haditha Dam Seizure. This story was first published in its entirety in The Year in Special Operations; 2006 Edition.

That dustcloud is the reason you'll be replacing engines, and the reason they don't do it unless it's a 100% exigency. It *IS* cool as hell to see that kind of thing in action, but doing it on that Bragg dirtstrip was fucking stupid maintenance and airframe longevity-wise. Especially when there's a perfectly good two mile paved strip less than a mile away at No-Hope-Pope. I think they were doing that crap during the trials.

Jets and turbofans just don't do well in high FOD environments.

C130's do dirt strip landings across the air force on literally a daily basis without any damage or lifespan degradation aside from a TACAN antenna or two.

When I was at MCAGCTC 29 Stumps CA, we were always on the lookout for comm wire spread across the desert floor.  Get that tangled up in your tracks and we were told it would tear up the seals on our road wheel arms where the road wheels are bolted on-or something like that.

In my mind, if a light tank is air dropped smack-dab into the middle of WWIII under fire, there's going to be problems while the crew assembles (if that's even possible), finds its tank, and preps it for operation.  I would think the confusion in the LZ would be epic if things didn't go according to plan.  D-Day at night all over again.  

If a tank suffered from a sudden stop like hitting the ground after being dropped from an airplane, the FCS is going to need to be updated with a new boresight if it's anything like the current Abrams MBT.  Maybe we have technology to overcome that now.  Anyway, my point is that any tank dropped into an LZ-whether under fire or not-is going to require some preparation before operation.  Parachute lines are going to have to be policed up and put someplace out of the way so they don't damage any rolling stock or tracked vehicles moving out of the area to their objective, on top of other steps being taken to be able to put steel on steel when the moment of truth presents itself.

The soviet model has proved itself oh so effective against the us model...

I think something like that with a developed shorter range/low pressure mortar capable of direct and indirect fires would be pretty well rounded.

More like a tank destroyer role? Or tracked arty? Oddball voice:, a quartet of Shermans can be very useful.

Because Shinseki got stuck on stupid with everything HAD to be Strykers no tracks allowed.  

The biggest abomination and POS is the MGS platform the M8 was a far superior equivalent to the M1 and C130 capable from the ground up.  

Most Strykers are not, unless they are completely striped until till they are nothing but a glorified bus.

And the reason why Sylvan's list of airborne landings was against third world gendarmeries, not military units.

Airborne is a barely supported mission at this point, by both the USAF and the Army itself. As dodgy as amphibious operations are, airborne operations are doubly so because of a lack of sustainable organic fires. Together, they would be usable, but I hope the USN/USMC never get any farther in the sucker's bet marked "USAF support."

and usually found broke in the motor pool...

Because it takes forever and a day to send a cargo ship full of M1 Abrams someplace.

No, it actually doesn't.

The MPS squadrons are usually sailing within 72 hours, and our MEUs are usually with 96 hours of any place on the planet.

I'm well aware of that, however the C130 is not the only short field capable airlift aircraft we have.

Speaking of the land of Oz..

Yeah - remember those huge victory parades we had in Hanoi and Pyongyang?

Neither do I ....