User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:40:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By that you mean shrink wrapped in a desert? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It should be C-27J mobile. That too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:41:58 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They were not air-droppable - which seems to be a primary Army requirement for a light tank. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. True. But I figure with new composite materials and new steel production techniques you could make a stronger and lighter TD.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:47:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It should be C-27J mobile. even for a swo, you're a dick. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:48:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
even for a swo, you're a dick. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It should be C-27J mobile. even for a swo, you're a dick. Duh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:22:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All M-1 variants can burn deisel. Just have to change filters. Not a Mechanic so not sure of what filters but do know you don't have to change filters but will run into problems quickly if you don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No we have the shorty. The Abrams engine can burn diesel I believe. Can't most jets if needed? The Abrams was optimised for fighting from defilade and relocating in European conditions... other tactics might favor other tanks. All M-1 variants can burn deisel. Just have to change filters. Not a Mechanic so not sure of what filters but do know you don't have to change filters but will run into problems quickly if you don't. Diesel is all that we put in ours when I was in. My M88, the M2/M3's, the M113's and all the wheeled vehicles got the same fuel. Why did they switch and what is the difference in fuel filters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:25:47 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dude as a paratrooper I loved that lumber behemouth of a gun Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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  .Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. Dude as a paratrooper I loved that lumber behemouth of a gun That big gun was more show than go. The Shiloh missile was terrible and the gun was only slightly better. For the weight and logistics, you probably would have had much better tank killing and fire support with couple of Humvee's with tows and one with a Mark 19. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:28:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True. But I figure with new composite materials and new steel production techniques you could make a stronger and lighter TD. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. True. But I figure with new composite materials and new steel production techniques you could make a stronger and lighter TD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:39:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Diesel is all that we put in ours when I was in. My M88, the M2/M3's, the M113's and all the wheeled vehicles got the same fuel. Why did they switch and what is the difference in fuel filters? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No we have the shorty. The Abrams engine can burn diesel I believe. Can't most jets if needed? The Abrams was optimised for fighting from defilade and relocating in European conditions... other tactics might favor other tanks. All M-1 variants can burn deisel. Just have to change filters. Not a Mechanic so not sure of what filters but do know you don't have to change filters but will run into problems quickly if you don't. Diesel is all that we put in ours when I was in. My M88, the M2/M3's, the M113's and all the wheeled vehicles got the same fuel. Why did they switch and what is the difference in fuel filters? I know in the Marines it's pretty awesome having a single fuel. One FARP can fuel planes, tanks, Humvee, motorcycles, the works. Simple logistics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 6:15:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any arty will murder-death-kill anything that's C-130 droppable. That's why you have infantry that can dig holes. Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... True and false. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 6:27:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More like a tank destroyer role? Or tracked arty? Oddball voice:, a quartet of Shermans can be very useful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree with having a light tank, but I don't see it having enough armor if it can be flown in by C-130. Set a weight limit of 30 tons, with the same gun and fire control as the Abrams. Do NOT make it turbine powered and NO aluminum armor. Has armor technology advanced enough to provide decent protection in that weight range? More like a tank destroyer role? Or tracked arty? Oddball voice:, a quartet of Shermans can be very useful. I figure it should have enough firepower to deal with a MBT if it has to but the main roles would be support of airborne infantry and scouting with some ambush action in there. I would also think it might be a good thing if it could be used as light mobile artillery. Kinda kill two birds with one stone. My thoughts are that they would be quickly deployable in numbers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 6:50:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True and false. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Any arty will murder-death-kill anything that's C-130 droppable. That's why you have infantry that can dig holes. Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... True and false.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 6:58:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Diesel is all that we put in ours when I was in. My M88, the M2/M3's, the M113's and all the wheeled vehicles got the same fuel. Why did they switch and what is the difference in fuel filters? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No we have the shorty. The Abrams engine can burn diesel I believe. Can't most jets if needed? The Abrams was optimised for fighting from defilade and relocating in European conditions... other tactics might favor other tanks. All M-1 variants can burn deisel. Just have to change filters. Not a Mechanic so not sure of what filters but do know you don't have to change filters but will run into problems quickly if you don't. Diesel is all that we put in ours when I was in. My M88, the M2/M3's, the M113's and all the wheeled vehicles got the same fuel. Why did they switch and what is the difference in fuel filters? I believe the military has gone to 'Jet Fuel for everything'. Diesels will run on JP-8. Or commercial Jet-A. Jet Fuel, in general, has fewer impurities than Diesel. So it would not surprise me if the reason that they have to change filters is because Diesel will clog up the fuel filters that are intended for JP-8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 7:02:49 PM EDT
[#13]
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. This?  It's not that different from the landing system on Soyuz capsules. ETA: Not that you'd really want to be in either... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 7:16:28 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I love it that Rick's trying to pop quiz a bunch of people who have actually dealt with this stuff in real life
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any arty will murder-death-kill anything that's C-130 droppable. That's why you have infantry that can dig holes. Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... True and false.
but, but, my simulations are tested and validated... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 7:42:43 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 8:09:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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 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. This?  http://youtu.be/4uGfOppQD_gIt's not that different from the landing system on Soyuz capsules. ETA: Not that you'd really want to be in either... same chutes do for a max palletized weight of say......45 tons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 8:16:29 PM EDT
[#17]
What was that cool little tank that they based the GIJOE "Mauler" off of?
Just looked it up: HSVT(L). I know dick about tanks, but always thought that one was neat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 9:28:36 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 11M's and 19K go together quite well. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 9:30:29 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any arty will murder-death-kill anything that's C-130 droppable. That's why you have infantry that can dig holes. Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... A properly dug fox hole will give you some protection unless it air bursts almost directly overhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 9:32:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
11M's and 19K go together quite well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. 11M's and 19K go together quite well. Except we don't have 11M's anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:13:35 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryWW2 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 Behind every hedgerove in normandy was a panzerfaust or AT gun. Also the bazooka was the grandfather to the rpg. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:18:24 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Behind every hedgerove in normandy was a panzerfaust or AT gun. Also the bazooka was the grandfather to the rpg. 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 Behind every hedgerove in normandy was a panzerfaust or AT gun. Also the bazooka was the grandfather to the rpg. Uh huh. They had a ton of shoulder fired AT weapons back in WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 10:38:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh huh. They had a ton of shoulder fired AT weapons back in WW2. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 Behind every hedgerove in normandy was a panzerfaust or AT gun. Also the bazooka was the grandfather to the rpg. Uh huh. They had a ton of shoulder fired AT weapons back in WW2. Yup. Even recoiless rifles were being used by all parties. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 12:10:25 AM EDT
[#24]
For this purpose, smaller is better.
I submit the BMD airborne. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 3:04:49 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And promptly ditched them for the wheeled, LAV-25 derivative AUSLAV. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Sort of yes sort of no. They still use a similar APC version, the M113AS4. They just put them into service in 2007 or so. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:07:12 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except we don't have 11M's anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 11M's and 19K go together quite well. Except we don't have 11M's anymore. No more Death before Dismount?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:20:53 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryFTW! Those little bastards run on a turbocharged 4 Cyl. VW engine (Wiesel 2); need to fix one? Pull up to the nearest VW Dealer... Plus they are fast as shit for what they are. 
DAS AUTO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:24:25 AM EDT
[#28]
My inner 10 year old votes for this:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:29:16 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True and false. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any arty will murder-death-kill anything that's C-130 droppable. That's why you have infantry that can dig holes. Pop quiz: artillery is a top-attack weapon - true or false ...... True and false. Last I checked, stuff falls down. Gravity: it's not just a suggestion - it's the law. Infantry in holes are not immune to artillery. While it gives them some protection, if they are in their hole with their head down, they aren't launching and guiding a TOW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:29:29 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My inner 10 year old votes for this: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071022025721/starwars/images/e/e9/At-st_large_pic.jpg Didn't some teddy bears fuck up a bunch of those with rocks, logs, and rope?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:31:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:but, but, my simulations are tested and validated... Not my simulation - it belongs to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. If you have a beef with it, take it up with them .... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:37:16 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't some teddy bears fuck up a bunch of those with rocks, logs, and rope? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My inner 10 year old votes for this: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071022025721/starwars/images/e/e9/At-st_large_pic.jpg Didn't some teddy bears fuck up a bunch of those with rocks, logs, and rope? -kentzonestar.jpg)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 6:41:08 AM EDT
[#33]
Go back to the WWII concept of using gliders. Build a jettisonable fiberglass airframe around your tank. Strap some rockets to it. Then tow it close, with a C17, then fire the rocket engines and let it fly itself to the LZ
I think ACME has these....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:01:52 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last I checked, stuff falls down. Gravity: it's not just a suggestion - it's the law. Infantry in holes are not immune to artillery. While it gives them some protection, if they are in their hole with their head down, they aren't launching and guiding a TOW. Last I checked, you still have no clue what you are talking about. 90% of casualties from artillery are caused by lateral fragmentation, which is indeed mitigated very well via foxholes. Artillery is only top attack when using VT. Otherwise it initiates via PD upon contact with the ground, making it not a top attack weapon, regardless of how it was delivered. If a large diameter artillery barrage is keeping infantry heads down, then likewise the enemy aren't moving within 500 meters of their position until it's over, especially if they are using VT for airburst. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:05:43 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Didn't some teddy bears fuck up a bunch of those with rocks, logs, and rope? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My inner 10 year old votes for this: http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20071022025721/starwars/images/e/e9/At-st_large_pic.jpg Didn't some teddy bears fuck up a bunch of those with rocks, logs, and rope? Operator headspace and timing issue. Nothing more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:08:06 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last I checked, you still have no clue what you are talking about. 90% of casualties from artillery are caused by lateral fragmentation, which is indeed mitigated very well via foxholes. If you are insinuating that because foxholes are open top and artillery falls down they are guaranteed to directly meet then you may want to just stop talking. If a large diameter artillery barrage is keeping infantry heads down, then likewise the enemy aren't moving within 500 meters of their position until it's over. No way man... artillery only hurts if it hits you right on top of the head... Kevlar/Aramid Level IV parasols FTW! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:10:02 AM EDT
[#37]
The choice fuse is VT, which is going to push fragments down into the whole. If there is overhead cover then you use a time setting.
When you want to close with the enemy to use a gunners quadrant to drop the rounds more accurately and you use a delay setting to mitigate blast radius issues. Or you can also use mortars. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:12:51 AM EDT
[#38]
100 main gun and 30mm auto cannon? Sounds like the Russkies did it right
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For this purpose, smaller is better. I submit the BMD airborne. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Exj1-aob0wU/UbgKSOCskUI/AAAAAAAAzFA/KF2aosaPSEc/s1600/otvaga2004_xlop1_bmd023.jpg http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/light_armoured/bmd-1/bmd-1_airborne_infantry_armoured_fighting_combat_vehicle_640.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:15:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting 2ACR kicked major ass and didn't know it until the dust settled. Some guys here have pics from that little get together. 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. Like the M56 Scorpion SP 90mm gun?   
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:25:04 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I retract my previous nomination of the Ontos. Wait, no I don't. Get both! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Mobile GAU-8/A Chassis. I retract my previous nomination of the Ontos. Wait, no I don't. Get both! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Have you actually seen an M50 Ontos? Been in one? Tiny, clastrophopbic things - and you have to get out to reload - after the 8th shot (if you survive because of that huge signature from the 106mm recoiless rifle). And it was based on the M56 Scorpion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:32:06 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you actually seen an M50 Ontos? Been in one? Tiny, clastrophopbic things - and you have to get out to reload - after the 8th shot (if you survive because of that huge signature from the 106mm recoiless rifle). And it was based on the M56 Scorpion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Mobile GAU-8/A Chassis. I retract my previous nomination of the Ontos. Wait, no I don't. Get both! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Have you actually seen an M50 Ontos? Been in one? Tiny, clastrophopbic things - and you have to get out to reload - after the 8th shot (if you survive because of that huge signature from the 106mm recoiless rifle). And it was based on the M56 Scorpion. If it's going to be air-droppable doesn't that imply it's got to be tiny by comparison? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:33:47 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
100 main gun and 30mm auto cannon? Sounds like the Russkies did it right Quote HistoryQuoted:
100 main gun and 30mm auto cannon? Sounds like the Russkies did it right Quoted:
For this purpose, smaller is better. I submit the BMD airborne. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Exj1-aob0wU/UbgKSOCskUI/AAAAAAAAzFA/KF2aosaPSEc/s1600/otvaga2004_xlop1_bmd023.jpg http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/light_armoured/bmd-1/bmd-1_airborne_infantry_armoured_fighting_combat_vehicle_640.jpg A 100mm low velocity main gun. It fires only missiles or explosive shells, not KE rounds. It's an APC, but only carries a 4 or 5 guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:37:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Question for the Airborne types. Do we really need a 'light tank' or are you really looking for a highly portable heavy weapon (that can do AT/Anti-bunker/knock down walls)? http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/AAFTankMuseum/SelfPropelledGuns/Mule106mmRecoillessGun/images/Mule106mmRecoillessGun.jpg Mule with a 106, air-droppable - lots of bang; of course other weapons could be mounted. Like a TOW (or better yet why not a Hellfire?) http://www.transchool.lee.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/images/mule4.gif We went from M274s with 106s to M151s with TOWs. Neither is really survivalable in high-intensity / high-speed armor / anti-armor warfare (we had a divisional doctrine call the the "Airborne Anti-Armor Defense" - the joes called it the "DIP" - die in place or the "speed bump". We couldn't displace without getting hammered and the TOW / Dragon / LAW mix didn't put enough kills on tanks to slow them down (against US units, in exercises). A single M1 had more main gun rounds than our battalions had TOTAL ATGMs - and if you let them close to LAW range you were already overrun. We tried empasizing roving tank killer teams, but we soon found out how slow we moved compared to US or comperable mech units. We needed our own tanks and one battalion of (hypothetically) 54 M551 Sheridan not-tanks spread out over three brigades was too few. Against Arabs? Maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:41:33 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Spain did something like that (at least for indirect fire): http://www.warwheels.net/images/M274mule120mmMortarSpainHaugh%20(1).jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Question for the Airborne types. Do we really need a 'light tank' or are you really looking for a highly portable heavy weapon (that can do AT/Anti-bunker/knock down walls)? http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/AAFTankMuseum/SelfPropelledGuns/Mule106mmRecoillessGun/images/Mule106mmRecoillessGun.jpg Mule with a 106, air-droppable - lots of bang; of course other weapons could be mounted. Like a TOW (or better yet why not a Hellfire?) http://www.transchool.lee.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/images/mule4.gif I think something like that with a developed shorter range/low pressure mortar capable of direct and indirect fires would be pretty well rounded. Spain did something like that (at least for indirect fire): http://www.warwheels.net/images/M274mule120mmMortarSpainHaugh%20(1).jpg That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:43:22 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We went from M274s with 106s to M151s with TOWs. Neither is really survivalable in high-intensity / high-speed armor / anti-armor warfare (we had a divisional doctrine call the the "Airborne Anti-Armor Defense" - the joes called it the "DIP" - die in place or the "speed bump". We couldn't displace without getting hammered and the TOW / Dragon / LAW mix didn't put enough kills on tanks to slow them down (against US units, in exercises). A single M1 had more main gun rounds than our battalions had TOTAL ATGMs - and if you let them close to LAW range you were already overrun. We tried empasizing roving tank killer teams, but we soon found out how slow we moved compared to US or comperable mech units. We needed our own tanks and one battalion of (hypothetically) 54 M551 Sheridan not-tanks spread out over three brigades was too few. Against Arabs? Maybe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Question for the Airborne types. Do we really need a 'light tank' or are you really looking for a highly portable heavy weapon (that can do AT/Anti-bunker/knock down walls)? http://www.williammaloney.com/Aviation/AAFTankMuseum/SelfPropelledGuns/Mule106mmRecoillessGun/images/Mule106mmRecoillessGun.jpg Mule with a 106, air-droppable - lots of bang; of course other weapons could be mounted. Like a TOW (or better yet why not a Hellfire?) http://www.transchool.lee.army.mil/museum/transportation%20museum/images/mule4.gif We went from M274s with 106s to M151s with TOWs. Neither is really survivalable in high-intensity / high-speed armor / anti-armor warfare (we had a divisional doctrine call the the "Airborne Anti-Armor Defense" - the joes called it the "DIP" - die in place or the "speed bump". We couldn't displace without getting hammered and the TOW / Dragon / LAW mix didn't put enough kills on tanks to slow them down (against US units, in exercises). A single M1 had more main gun rounds than our battalions had TOTAL ATGMs - and if you let them close to LAW range you were already overrun. We tried empasizing roving tank killer teams, but we soon found out how slow we moved compared to US or comperable mech units. We needed our own tanks and one battalion of (hypothetically) 54 M551 Sheridan not-tanks spread out over three brigades was too few. Against Arabs? Maybe. Are you talking using an Airborne Division against a Tank Division, or Airborne having assets to defend against a few tanks. I wouldn't want the jeep/tow hunter-killer teams to be going nose to nose against a tank company, but in an ambush of a tank platoon or against some BMPs? I think DIP was a common thought for us Cold War types.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:44:20 AM EDT
[#46]
They will be used to fill the FEMA Camps.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:44:39 AM EDT
[#47]
Wouldn't that be an RPG magnet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:45:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a parade. The M274 was not capable of havng a 107mm / 120mm mortar fired from it. Maybe a 60mm once or twice - but it would have been inoperable quick. Mortars settle their baseplates 2-3 inches in HAR packed dirt when fired. A mortar carrier has to be designed for that and the mortar is in a recoil dampening mount. Agreed - but the idea of using an air droppable light vehicle to carry the heavy motars (and other weapons) to the fight - then dismount and use them (when not in direct line of fire). You guys don't air drop trucks for the troops to ride in do you? (I honestly don't know - I was aviation not 11 series) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:47:06 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting 2ACR kicked major ass and didn't know it until the dust settled. Some guys here have pics from that little get together. The main point about a LAAW is light armor. I wouldn't fire one at a T-55 and expect a kill. I never served, if anyone has a differing opinion please fill me in. That middle pic looks dangerous. no thank you 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. Like the M56 Scorpion SP 90mm gun? http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5003/5329456083_25bbd258e3_z.jpg http://www.imcdb.org/i435864.jpg http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7186857284_e2bdf81e00_z.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2013 8:47:29 AM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
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.
