User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:39:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They were not air-droppable - which seems to be a primary Army requirement for a light tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:40:28 AM EDT
[#2]
No problem.........I thought I had read somewhere that AT weapons were getting two warheads to defeat reactive armor, and that armor specialists were working on something to defeat that..........never ending cycle
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Javelin is specifically designed to defeat reactive armor. Anything more then that, I won't go into. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about if a tank is covered in reactive armor on the top? Wasnt some type of applique armor developed to withstand top attacks? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can kill a 5 million dollar MBT with a 150,000 dollar Javelin. The days of Tanks being the ultimate ground killing machine are over. They said that in 1973, they were wrong then too. They aren't wrong, nothing on steel treads can survive a top attack from a Jav. And as I added on earlier. When we got to be attached to JRTC OPFOR, their commander said his biggest worry on the battlefield of all the weapon systems the army brings in. The squad running around with Javelins was his biggest headache. Javelin is specifically designed to defeat reactive armor. Anything more then that, I won't go into. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:42:14 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:43:00 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Same idea. What is it? The Rapid Deployment/Light Tank was developed by AAI Corporation to meet a specification requested by the US Army in 1980. The first RDF/LT shown in the brochure was fitted with a high velocity 76mm cannon similar to the one fitted to the M-41 Walker Bulldog. The nexts version was fitted with an AAI developed cannon that fired caseless telescoping 75mm rounds that could be fired in burst and had an extreme elevation for engaging slow moving aircraft or helicopters. AAI claimed that 75mm cannon could defeat modern main battle tanks by hitting them with a five round burst in the same area of the armor. Three versions of the RDF/LT with the ultra modern full auto 75mm cannon were developed. The first two color photo shows the first model. It had a crew of three with one in the hull and two in the turret. The second version had only a crew of two with both in the hull and the turret unmanned. The last version was a combined antiarmor and antiair fitted with two pods that carried four Stinger missiles each. The RDF/LT was never seriously considered by the US Army because they wanted any so called "light tank" to mount the same cannon as was fitted to most modern main battle tanks. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html Part in blue - why the Army can't have nice things - too restrictive. Trying to build a 'light' tank that has any kind of armor but still uses MBT rounds is a recipe for failure. Even the M-8 uses the 105 instead of the 120. I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. WW2 didn't involve RPG's, ATGM, and gun trucks with 14.5/23mm cannons around every corner. Also, tank destroyers weren't used in air drops, had lots of infantry support, and were mostly used in defensive roles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:45:03 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No problem.........I thought I had read somewhere that AT weapons were getting two warheads to defeat reactive armor, and that armor specialists were working on something to defeat that..........never ending cycle Quote HistoryQuoted: No problem.........I thought I had read somewhere that AT weapons were getting two warheads to defeat reactive armor, and that armor specialists were working on something to defeat that..........never ending cycle Quoted: Javelin is specifically designed to defeat reactive armor. Anything more then that, I won't go into. We're seeing 80s Soviet tech AT weapons in Syria taking out modern T72s and T80s with reactive armor. But you're right about that. Always never ending battle between the armorer and weapon designer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:48:15 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about if a tank is covered in reactive armor on the top? Wasnt some type of applique armor developed to withstand top attacks? Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about if a tank is covered in reactive armor on the top? Wasnt some type of applique armor developed to withstand top attacks? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can kill a 5 million dollar MBT with a 150,000 dollar Javelin. The days of Tanks being the ultimate ground killing machine are over. They said that in 1973, they were wrong then too. They aren't wrong, nothing on steel treads can survive a top attack from a Jav. And as I added on earlier. When we got to be attached to JRTC OPFOR, their commander said his biggest worry on the battlefield of all the weapon systems the army brings in. The squad running around with Javelins was his biggest headache. active defense systems will cause the cycle to start over. Top attack against trophy type systems fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:48:30 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. That is still defensive tactic, staying in one spot too long invites artillery or getting flanked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:58:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The war invalidated the entire concept. You'll notice after the War, our tanks went heavy and slow (comparitively.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. The war invalidated the entire concept. You'll notice after the War, our tanks went heavy and slow (comparitively.) The Germans and French also went from fast and no armor to slow and lots of armor post WWII. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:04:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Israelis used AMX-13s to great effect in 1967.
And then bought M60s and heavy ass merks. Soviet 40 ton 55s-72s got the shit blown out of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:21:08 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is still defensive tactic, staying in one spot too long invites artillery or getting flanked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. That is still defensive tactic, staying in one spot too long invites artillery or getting flanked. Good point. For example, tanks attempting to breach obstacles are an artilleryman's wet dream because they're not moving while the engineers do their thing to clear a lane. Mobility is life. When you're not in the attack, or your attack is delayed, that heavy armor is the next best thing to being a moving target, instead of stationary bullet magnet. For planning an offensive operation based on the availability of supporting fires, one can conduct a good map reconnaissance and establish pre-plots based on where you think the enemy is likely to set up potential battle positions for their planned defense of the objective or axis of advance. Light tanks like the PT-76 or the ASUs that the Soviets fielded had or have serious limitations. Arty can be used against the enemy the same way it can be used against us. Light armor may not even require a direct hit to utterly destroy. 122 mm and 152mm SP arty from the Soviet era would be an excellent example of how modern, but thinly armored vehicles are still vulnerable to indirect fire. That's what makes the M8 so attractive-you can add armor once it's in theater, and mitigate some of the vulnerabilities that light tanks are known for. You can't always use terrain to provide the protection to the crew that it needs to fight and win the battle. Just my .02 cents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:30:06 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Part in blue - why the Army can't have nice things - too restrictive. Trying to build a 'light' tank that has any kind of armor but still uses MBT rounds is a recipe for failure. Even the M-8 uses the 105 instead of the 120. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Same idea. What is it? The Rapid Deployment/Light Tank was developed by AAI Corporation to meet a specification requested by the US Army in 1980. The first RDF/LT shown in the brochure was fitted with a high velocity 76mm cannon similar to the one fitted to the M-41 Walker Bulldog. The nexts version was fitted with an AAI developed cannon that fired caseless telescoping 75mm rounds that could be fired in burst and had an extreme elevation for engaging slow moving aircraft or helicopters. AAI claimed that 75mm cannon could defeat modern main battle tanks by hitting them with a five round burst in the same area of the armor. Three versions of the RDF/LT with the ultra modern full auto 75mm cannon were developed. The first two color photo shows the first model. It had a crew of three with one in the hull and two in the turret. The second version had only a crew of two with both in the hull and the turret unmanned. The last version was a combined antiarmor and antiair fitted with two pods that carried four Stinger missiles each. The RDF/LT was never seriously considered by the US Army because they wanted any so called "light tank" to mount the same cannon as was fitted to most modern main battle tanks. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html Part in blue - why the Army can't have nice things - too restrictive. Trying to build a 'light' tank that has any kind of armor but still uses MBT rounds is a recipe for failure. Even the M-8 uses the 105 instead of the 120. To be fair, I in no way disagree with the part in blue. The RDF was cool, shit they even made a GI Joe tank out of it, but the idea of using a high velocity cannon on burst to bust through heavier armor is silly. Also 75mm lacks a good HE punch that you get with a 105. The 105 is a supported caliber which we have large stocks of, can defeat most modern armored threats, it gives a good HE round, and a good canister round. I think the hardest part about implementing a light tank concept is the crew mindset. Getting a 19K crewman out of an Abrams pipeline and throwing them into a light armored vehicle is problematic, we should have a separate MOS for the Abrams, and another for the MGS/Light tank crewmen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:32:35 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The war invalidated the entire concept. You'll notice after the War, our tanks went heavy and slow (comparitively.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. The war invalidated the entire concept. You'll notice after the War, our tanks went heavy and slow (comparitively.) Yup, there is a reason modern militaries went to the Main Battle Tank concept. Closet thing to modern tank destroyers are the M1134 and TOW HMMWV's and LAV-AT. 
The MGS is designed for infantry direct fire support, not anti tank work. People often lose sight of that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:35:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. You are both right. The German TD doctrine focused more on heavily armored vehicles in good defensive positions where as American TD doctrine was more focused on ambush tactics. Ambushes work better when you have a better defensive position. US TD doctrine gets a bad rep, they actually did remarkably well in their employment, it's just that MBT's were a better concept and ATGM's eventually re surged the TD concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:37:30 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We're seeing 80s Soviet tech AT weapons in Syria taking out modern T72s and T80s with reactive armor. But you're right about that. Always never ending battle between the armorer and weapon designer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No problem.........I thought I had read somewhere that AT weapons were getting two warheads to defeat reactive armor, and that armor specialists were working on something to defeat that..........never ending cycle Quoted:
Javelin is specifically designed to defeat reactive armor. Anything more then that, I won't go into. We're seeing 80s Soviet tech AT weapons in Syria taking out modern T72s and T80s with reactive armor. But you're right about that. Always never ending battle between the armorer and weapon designer. Correct but the anti tank weapons being used are far more modern than the reactive armor on the tanks they are being used on. A better example would be Kontakt-5 and Shotra systems against Javelin and Spike ATGM's. Also take a look at the Izzie's in their last couple of foray's into Lebanon, their tanks for their noses bloodied but they were far from combat ineffective. Tanks will take casualties, it's going to happen against any threat. This does not negate their utility. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:39:22 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Germans and French also went from fast and no armor to slow and lots of armor post WWII. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. The war invalidated the entire concept. You'll notice after the War, our tanks went heavy and slow (comparitively.) The Germans and French also went from fast and no armor to slow and lots of armor post WWII. The question isn't "Are tanks useful in MCO?" it's "are C-130 capable light tanks necessary for airborne forces?". They're completely different debates. Light wheeled vehicles with TOWs, Javelins, and some of the more mundane organic weapons (mortars, recoilless rifles) are what Airborne forces need. The purpose of airborne forces is to find a weak point, take it with force, then hold on until bigger, heavier guys show up. They don't conduct long term offensive operations. They don't go head to head against the enemy main force and expect to defeat him. Maybe delay him. Maybe even cause him to break off an offensive, but they're not for hunting down armored units. Our Main Battle Tanks are the best for killing other country's tanks. The usage of airborne forces is not an ideal situation. It's an extreme solution when nothing else can get there in time. Ideally we'd initiate with fires and heavy armor in a combined arms assault. When we can't do that, we need something to get us time. Any threat that can engage dismounted men who have prepared fighting positions will also destroy any vehicle that is droppable from a C-130. You want to talk artillery? I can put overhead cover on my foxhole. I can't really put overhead cover on my lightly armored vehicle. I can hide my light tank, but I can hide a man much easier, with many more options. It's a better idea to stay hidden until the last moment and get close to your enemy when they have superior artillery forces than it is to be visible with a paltry defense. The Vietnamese knew that. The Taliban kind of know that. We should know that. If you're going to get an armored vehicle, get one that's serious about being armor. If you're going to be air dropping a vehicle, it's not going to be serious about armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:43:29 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
. but the idea of using a high velocity cannon on burst to bust through heavier armor is silly. Also 75mm lacks a good HE punch that you get with a 105. . Agreed. However the idea that one is sending a light tank to go toe-to-toe against a MBT is silly as well. If you need to kill them on a frontal shot - then replace a Stinger or two with a Hellfire. I see no issue with the 75mm for use against BMPs, BTRs, or even rear (and potentially side) shots on some Soviet tanks. That is what is making programs takes so damn long and cost so much - they are want capability that over reaches the technology to meet that 0.5% situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:44:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is what is making programs takes so damn long and cost so much - they are want capability that over reaches the technology to meet that 0.5% situation. It boils down to the unwillingness to accept risk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:44:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's what makes the M8 so attractive-you can add armor once it's in theater, and mitigate some of the vulnerabilities that light tanks are known for. You can't always use terrain to provide the protection to the crew that it needs to fight and win the battle. . Honestly that is a relatively easy option to incorporate into any new light tank design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:49:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It boils down to the unwillingness to accept risk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That is what is making programs takes so damn long and cost so much - they are want capability that over reaches the technology to meet that 0.5% situation. It boils down to the unwillingness to accept risk. Succinct and to the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:52:16 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. However the idea that one is sending a light tank to go toe-to-toe against a MBT is silly as well. If you need to kill them on a frontal shot - then replace a Stinger or two with a Hellfire. I see no issue with the 75mm for use against BMPs, BTRs, or even rear (and potentially side) shots on some Soviet tanks. That is what is making programs takes so damn long and cost so much - they are want capability that over reaches the technology to meet that 0.5% situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. but the idea of using a high velocity cannon on burst to bust through heavier armor is silly. Also 75mm lacks a good HE punch that you get with a 105. . Agreed. However the idea that one is sending a light tank to go toe-to-toe against a MBT is silly as well. If you need to kill them on a frontal shot - then replace a Stinger or two with a Hellfire. I see no issue with the 75mm for use against BMPs, BTRs, or even rear (and potentially side) shots on some Soviet tanks. That is what is making programs takes so damn long and cost so much - they are want capability that over reaches the technology to meet that 0.5% situation. True enough, but we have the AGS that does this with the 105 and brings good existing capability to the table, so why reinvent the wheel? Another question for the paras and jump masters. Has heavy equipment parachutes and other equipment advanced to the point where air dropping a multi million dollar armored vehicle is viable? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:53:06 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It boils down to the unwillingness to accept risk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That is what is making programs takes so damn long and cost so much - they are want capability that over reaches the technology to meet that 0.5% situation. It boils down to the unwillingness to accept risk. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:53:51 AM EDT
[#22]
This was developed by my employer, then the Army said, "Nope."
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:54:10 AM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:57:12 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryI hate to quote Wiki, but... The chassis is made of steel armour and can resist the common 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm small arms ammunition. Air dropping the vehicle from a plane with parachutes was tested, but was not successful; four test-vehicles were destroyed. Nevertheless, the Wiesel can easily be flown in by transport helicopters, a single CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter can fly in two at once, and common transport planes can carry four or more Wiesel vehicles. It fails on many levels for this solicitation. It's also considered by the Germans to be an Armored Weapons Carrier, not a light tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 11:59:17 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: M8 AGS comeback tour? That's exactly what I was thinking, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:07:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This was developed by my employer, then the Army said, "Nope." http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html You'll be happy to know, I had the GI Joe version. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:09:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This was developed by my employer, then the Army said, "Nope." http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html We were just talking about that beastie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:11:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Just build a tank that can fly
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:15:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .They're gonna cut the wings off an F35 and add tracks. Then they can call it the UJSF. (ULTRA Joint strike fighter) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:44:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: why they got rid of the Sheridans is anyones guess. it had the largest bore for a scout vehicle and the army has tons of them 1. The vehicle was unable to take the recoil stress of the 152mm gun rounds (caused mechanical and electronic issues). 2. The stress of being airdropped fatigued the alloy road wheels, torsion bars, etc. Micro-stress fractures. For the slight weight difference (for an AFV - 3 tons IIRC), updated M-24 Chaffees would have been awesome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:45:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate to quote Wiki, but... It fails on many levels for this solicitation. It's also considered by the Germans to be an Armored Weapons Carrier, not a light tank. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate to quote Wiki, but... The chassis is made of steel armour and can resist the common 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm small arms ammunition. Air dropping the vehicle from a plane with parachutes was tested, but was not successful; four test-vehicles were destroyed. Nevertheless, the Wiesel can easily be flown in by transport helicopters, a single CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopter can fly in two at once, and common transport planes can carry four or more Wiesel vehicles. It fails on many levels for this solicitation. It's also considered by the Germans to be an Armored Weapons Carrier, not a light tank. Cute little buggers, though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:50:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cute little buggers, though. Like a SmartCar with a gun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 12:58:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just build a tank that can fly As silly as that is, that's what I was getting at earlier. I think helicopters, especially unmanned ones, could handle this role better than any ground vehicle could reasonably be expected to. You can probably stuff several Firescouts (or similar) into a C-130. It would make sense to develop a "forward operation center" module, able to control, re-arm, and refuel the birds, that could also be dropped out of a C-130, and could be operated by a small detachment of personnel. Say you can get 4 birds into a Hercules. Take 3 C-130s and a 6-12 soldiers, and you can field 8 Hellfire/70mm armed helicopters and roam a 100 mile radius with minimal personnel at risk, able to gather intel and kill most anything encountered on a modern battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:19:28 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WW2 didn't involve RPG's, ATGM, and gun trucks with 14.5/23mm cannons around every corner. Also, tank destroyers weren't used in air drops, had lots of infantry support, and were mostly used in defensive roles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:42:12 PM EDT
[#35]
The Wiesel with a mortar looks as handy as a pocket in a shirt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:52:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are both right. The German TD doctrine focused more on heavily armored vehicles in good defensive positions where as American TD doctrine was more focused on ambush tactics. Ambushes work better when you have a better defensive position. US TD doctrine gets a bad rep, they actually did remarkably well in their employment, it's just that MBT's were a better concept and ATGM's eventually re surged the TD concept. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. You are both right. The German TD doctrine focused more on heavily armored vehicles in good defensive positions where as American TD doctrine was more focused on ambush tactics. Ambushes work better when you have a better defensive position. US TD doctrine gets a bad rep, they actually did remarkably well in their employment, it's just that MBT's were a better concept and ATGM's eventually re surged the TD concept. The decision by Germany to field armored anti-tank platforms such as the Sturmgeshutze III was as much economic, as it was practical in terms of industrial limitations and battlefield needs. Using less resources, they could be manufactured more quickly and at lower cost under conditions of extreme demand. After the Germans started their fighting withdraw from the USSR, it was an ideal supplement to their armor forces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:54:20 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:54:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The decision by Germany to field armored anti-tank platforms such as the Sturmgeshutze III was as much economic, as it was practical in terms of industrial limitations and battlefield needs. Using less resources, they could be manufactured more quickly and at lower cost under conditions of extreme demand. After the Germans started their fighting withdraw from the USSR, it was an ideal supplement to their armor forces. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the US Army used Tank Destroyers to great effective in WW2? Which were basically very lightly armored tanks with big guns. They're really a defensive weapon. Big gun with thin armor and no protection in the form of a turret roof. Best employed from prepared battle positions. When used like a tank in the offense, they didn't do to well at all. I thought it was meant for "shoot and scoot". Riding around, find a target, eliminate it, and quickly the get fuck out before that can engage with counter fire. Of course, I'll defer to you on anything related to armored warfare. You are both right. The German TD doctrine focused more on heavily armored vehicles in good defensive positions where as American TD doctrine was more focused on ambush tactics. Ambushes work better when you have a better defensive position. US TD doctrine gets a bad rep, they actually did remarkably well in their employment, it's just that MBT's were a better concept and ATGM's eventually re surged the TD concept. The decision by Germany to field armored anti-tank platforms such as the Sturmgeshutze III was as much economic, as it was practical in terms of industrial limitations and battlefield needs. Using less resources, they could be manufactured more quickly and at lower cost under conditions of extreme demand. After the Germans started their fighting withdraw from the USSR, it was an ideal supplement to their armor forces. True, but I was referring to the Jagdpanzer/panther/tiger series more than the Stug units. The Sturmgeschutz Battalions are interesting unto themselves to be honest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:03:15 PM EDT
[#39]
What kind of range and run-time are we looking at for these types of vehicles before needing fuel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:20:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Australian FSV (Fire Support Vehicle) They took old Saladin armored car turrets and mounted them on M113's for mobile fire support. They were used in Vietnam. They stuck with the concept upgrading them later with Scorpion light tank turrets and renaming them MRV's. (Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-agCDxAV-jnk/UITJ4ES9enI/AAAAAAAAkD0/C7tkDX7xnJM/s400/4038264624_99a56034af_b.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7253/7116054575_60b0213493_z.jpg Looks like a stuart turret stuck on a 113 chasis. Australian FSV (Fire Support Vehicle) They took old Saladin armored car turrets and mounted them on M113's for mobile fire support. They were used in Vietnam. They stuck with the concept upgrading them later with Scorpion light tank turrets and renaming them MRV's. (Medium Reconnaissance Vehicle) http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-agCDxAV-jnk/UITJ4ES9enI/AAAAAAAAkD0/C7tkDX7xnJM/s400/4038264624_99a56034af_b.jpg And promptly ditched them for the wheeled, LAV-25 derivative AUSLAV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:39:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We were just talking about that beastie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This was developed by my employer, then the Army said, "Nope." http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4488.html We were just talking about that beastie. Posted before I read all six pages.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:51:14 PM EDT
[#42]
They'll certainly run a competition, but this is clearly a cry for a couple battalions worth of M-8's.
Nor is this the first cry they've made for them. The nice thing about the M-8 was the armor packages - they had an Airdroppable package, a slightly heavier C-130-capable-non-airdroppable package, and one that would protect you from heavier non-tank guns, but couldn't fit in a '130. IIRC, BAE has done some tests with a 120mm gun, too. Most of the other stuff on the market is over 20t, which means no C-130's. And for airborne, you really need it to fit in the back of a 130. C-17's, even if not in-use in the strategic airlift role, just can't get in and out of the same fields. IMO, buy base-model M-8's; no armor packages, and get them in production. While you are doing that, let R&D have a crack at the modular armor. Materials tech has come a ways since the M-8 was developed, but the modular nature of the add-on armor means you can likely improve this relatively easily. And since they won't take as long to build as the rest of the tanks, you can probably catch it up to the systems before they get to active-duty, deployable units anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:52:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Stupid leg question about the weight limit on air dropping armored vehicles.
Per wiki, the parachutes on the shuttle SRB are each rated at 88 metric tons, and three are used the give the 91 metric ton empty SRB an impact rate of about 80 fps into water. Can't bigger parachutes be used on something like a 40 ton vehicle dropped from a C-17? Are moving CG issues at the load is dropped too hard to overcome? Is that impact the issue and not the weight? I recall video of the Russians using proximity activated retro-rockets at the last second to slow descent. Maybe the issue isn't the ground or air vehicle but the parachute system.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:07:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same idea. What is it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Same idea. What is it? The Mauler. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:15:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stupid leg question about the weight limit on air dropping armored vehicles. Per wiki, the parachutes on the shuttle SRB are each rated at 88 metric tons, and three are used the give the 91 metric ton empty SRB an impact rate of about 80 fps into water. Can't bigger parachutes be used on something like a 40 ton vehicle dropped from a C-17? Are moving CG issues at the load is dropped too hard to overcome? Is that impact the issue and not the weight? I recall video of the Russians using proximity activated retro-rockets at the last second to slow descent. Maybe the issue isn't the ground or air vehicle but the parachute system. 80fps is very fast, that is 55mph. How many modern tanks can hit a solid object at that speed and be battle ready in <5 minutes? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:15:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Same idea. What is it? The Mauler. http://www.yojoe.com/vehicles/85/mauler/mauler_left.jpg
The High Survivability Test Vehicle – Lightweight (HSTV-L).  [/URL]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:25:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys are going to give KA3B a stroke if you keep commenting and not fully reading and understanding the article posted in the OP. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:31:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
80fps is very fast, that is 55mph. How many modern tanks can hit a solid object at that speed and be battle ready in <5 minutes? Kharn Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Stupid leg question about the weight limit on air dropping armored vehicles. Per wiki, the parachutes on the shuttle SRB are each rated at 88 metric tons, and three are used the give the 91 metric ton empty SRB an impact rate of about 80 fps into water. Can't bigger parachutes be used on something like a 40 ton vehicle dropped from a C-17? Are moving CG issues at the load is dropped too hard to overcome? Is that impact the issue and not the weight? I recall video of the Russians using proximity activated retro-rockets at the last second to slow descent. Maybe the issue isn't the ground or air vehicle but the parachute system. 80fps is very fast, that is 55mph. How many modern tanks can hit a solid object at that speed and be battle ready in <5 minutes? Kharn They also tend to want to drop these from low altitude, so as not to expose the dropping aircraft in certain scenarios. Not much time to slow down. But the real issue is C-130 mobility. For a wide range of reasons, they want to be able to move this via 130, not via C-17. The C-17 is really a strategic airlift asset, and it's likely to be tied up moving the big Iron, while 130's move stuff out front. There is also a not-insubstantial difference in where they can land. A C-130 can get a LOT of places that a C-17 can't. (In contrast, a C-130 can go -anywhere- that the smaller C-27 can go... which is why, when forced to chose, the 27's went away) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:33:14 PM EDT
[#49]
It should be C-27J mobile.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:37:59 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should be C-27J mobile. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
