So In Conclusion To This Thread: a) in 200 Years, sensors and displays will
improve enough that tankers will be able to maintain awareness without leaving
the protection of their armor; b) or maybe not; c) regardless, some tankers
will still prefer direct vision and will expose themselves ["perverts!"] to
get it; d) but they'd better learn to live without it if they visit Alarish,
or Luna, or Ganymede, or lots of other places where the air is a little
different than what they're used to.
In starting a new Thread: The real question is if you get greater and greater
man portable destructive power in smaller and smaller packages do tanks become
obsolete?
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 2/6/00 1:56:03 PM Central Standard Time,
apter@prodigy.net writes:
<< In starting a new Thread: The real question is if you get greater and
greater man portable destructive power in smaller and smaller packages do
tanks become obsolete? >>
They've been saying that since the late 1920's when anti-tank grenades
became available.
Andrew Apter, who won't leave well enough alone, burbled:
> In starting a new Thread:
The Antimatter Hand Grenade, right.
I think you will find that in the Gulf War Tank to tank kills were not were
most tank losses came from.
[quoted original message omitted]
Things lighter and faster and just as well armed.
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 2/6/00 3:10:53 PM Central Standard Time,
apter@prodigy.net writes:
<< I think you will find that in the Gulf War Tank to tank kills were not were
most tank losses came from. >>
They were mostly lost to aircraft and helicopters -however such weapons
are part of combined arms doctrine and neither tank, infantry nor gunship can
survive the modern battlefield without balanced support. In the US army a
significant number of our losses were to "friendly' fire. When push came to
shove the Iraquis "balanced" forces were on the losing end of the exchange due
to superior doctrine and superior weapons, however that does not mean the tank
is now, nor ever has been, invlunerable.
> Andrew Apter wrote:
Don't attack infantry equipped with Anti-Tank weapons with your tanks.
Hit 'em with something else in your combined arms force, like artillery.
The question is in a future combined arms team is there the a more effective
weapon that can fill the same tactical nitch as a tank. Especialy when faced
with transporting such a massive weapons system. The tanks combanation of
shock, mobility and fire power have made it one of the most important factors
in 20th century warfare. What technologies are there that can make a tank do
it's job better? What technologies are there that can do the job of a tank
better than a tank?
Of course a combined arms team must exploit all of it's resources. But what is
in the mix varies with technologies. There are times that your forces have a
weapon that is a good fit and times things don't quite fit. One example is
what to use for a modern light tank. When you look for a 22nd century MBT look
at the roll of a MBT, not it's current TOE's, to match a weapons system to the
job. Be it tank, heavy assault shuttle or jump troops the choice will vary
with time and technology. The only constant is change.
[quoted original message omitted]
RE: "Tanks, for the Memories"Is a 20 Ton armored automated two man or
automated grav vehicle still a tank if has the maneuverability and the fire
power of a tank (relative to the battle field)
> Andrew Apter wrote:
The value in tanks is not their immunity to infantry. Tanks are a mobile fire
platform; Firepower, Shock Action, Manouvreability. These are what tanks are
for. As Andrew Martin points out, Infantry can be countered by artillery,
other infantry, mines, air attack etc etc. That is why Combined Arms is so
powerful.
No, tanks will quite likely have their uses for a long time to come. Consider
too that the tank will be able to reduce in size dependant on its role on the
battlefield.
In a message dated 2/6/00 5:47:36 PM Central Standard Time,
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
> No, tanks will quite likely have their uses for a long time to come.
Just as a side note we are currently in the process of converting two
tank/mech brigades into wheeled armor mobile brigades. One is standing
up this quarter. 3/2ID out of Ft Lewis. They traded in their M1Abrahms
for 46 LAV IIIs on loan from the Canadian Army. The new brigades are being
termed Initial brigades duwe to where they are slotted in any intervention.
Now they won't or may not be using LAV IIIs for long. The Army also just
finished a major "test drive" if you will of a large number of new armored
vehicles, tanks, APCs, mortar carriers, etc. The main requirements were that
they had to be wheeled and that they had to be able to fit on a C130. Over a
1000 tankers were brought in to Knox
(IIRC) and they divied up the 30+ different vehilces and put them
through their paces. Some were APCs some were tanks and there was a mortar
carrier also. All kinds of manufacturers. Note that the intent is not to find
a replacement for the Sheriden and other light vehilces, etc. but to create a
whole new class of amored unit (hence the initial brigades) with punch and
sustainment but with a much more rapid capability of deployment. The rational
being that hey heavy armor is nice but what good is it if you can't get it
where you want it in time?
Anyway just some news...
In a message dated 2/6/00 11:19:45 PM Central Standard Time,
los@cris.com writes:
<< Note that the intent is not to find a replacement for the Sheriden and
other light vehilces, etc. but to create a whole new class of amored unit
(hence the initial brigades) with punch and sustainment but with a much more
rapid capability of deployment. The rational being that hey heavy armor is
nice but what good is it if you can't get it where you want it in time?
> [quoted text omitted]
I hope this kind of equipment will hit the Armored Cavalry Regiments as they
face losing their armor ot HUMMERS. Jeez - a hummer is a nice vehicle,
but I'd sure rather have a Chaffee wrapped around me than a Hummer with a flak
jacket's wort of Kevlar between me and sharp objects.
Eggshells armed with sledge hammers?
Buck
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Andrew Apter" <apter@prodigy.net>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: RE: "Tanks, for the Memories"
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2000 16:10:02 -0500
Things lighter and faster and just as well armed.
[quoted original message omitted]
> I wrote:
Hit 'em with something else in your combined arms force, like artillery.
> Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
Hear!
Works for me. Just be careful when driving up infantry in their APCs.
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
> "Glover, Owen" wrote:
for those (like me) not well up on AFVs in general, the LAV III is a
16-tonne, 8-wheel Canuck IFV, speed 100 km/h (62 Mi/h), carrying 3 crew
and 7 pongoes, armed with a 25 mm autocannon, coax and pintle MGs and
smoke/frag launchers.
http://www.army.dnd.ca/equip/veh/LAV-3_E.HTML
's basically yer modern light-weight wheeled IFV.
i guess swapping an M1 for a LAV3 is a pretty big shift in focus!
> The Army also just finished a major "test drive" if you will of a
why must they be wheeled, rather than tracked?
tom
In a message dated 2/7/00 6:01:13 AM Central Standard Time,
> thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk writes:
<< i guess swapping an M1 for a LAV3 is a pretty big shift in focus!
> [quoted text omitted]
I believe you wil find them trading their M2's NOT M-1's. The M2 is the
Bradley Infantry FIghting Vehicle. THe reason for going to wheels is that the
wheeled vehicles tend to be LIGHTER, making them air deployable rather than
requiringa Ro-Ro sea transport and a train to get them to their area of
operations.
In a message dated 2/7/00 12:51:16 AM Central Standard Time,
> geofferyr@hotmail.com writes:
<< Eggshells armed with sledge hammers?
Buck
> [quoted text omitted]
Better than eggshells armed with pea shooters - or NO egg shell at all.
The ability to air deploy this armor will give a division some armor without
having to wait weeks (if at all) to sea deploy it.
> why must they be wheeled, rather than tracked?
I don't know I didn't write the specs, probably lighter, cheaper, less
maintenance headache and nearly as manueverable as tanks.
<< i guess swapping an M1 for a LAV3 is a pretty big shift in focus!
> [quoted text omitted]
I believe you will find them trading their M2's NOT M-1's. The M2 is the
Bradley Infantry FIghting Vehicle. THe reason for going to wheels is that the
wheeled vehicles tend to be LIGHTER, making them air deployable rather than
requiringa Ro-Ro sea transport and a train to get them to their area of
operations.
<<<<<<<<<<<
BTW it is M1 tanks they swapped out for not Bradleys. (A tank battalion)
Now
before someone scratches their head and goes wtf? One of the new wheeled tanks
selected, is gong to have main gun armament. However the task for now with
this Initial Brigade is to work out a whole slew of issues such as
deployability, field logistics, mobility and tactics, etc. So for now the LAV
III's will do. You can rig them up with Miles to simulate any size gun you
need. Then when the new tanks come on board they can focus on gunnery and
whatnot.
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
> I don't know I didn't write the specs, probably lighter, cheaper, less
Definately a combination of all of these. Probably add the fact that it would
be very rapid deployment capable. Easily air transportable and is self
deploying on roadmarch without all the extra maintenance that a tank
> BTW it is M1 tanks they swapped out for not Bradleys. (A tank
Who is getting them? The OPFOR guys or some other Btn? I'd love to watch
this sort of battle. Rommel would love it I think....
> Ryan M Gill wrote:
> > BTW it is M1 tanks they swapped out for not Bradleys. (A tank
Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division is the first with a second brigade at
Ft Lewis to follow. BTW there is no preconceived requirement that it be a
wheeled vehicle I think My statement was misleading. But it has to fit on a
C130. There has been some trepidation in the armor community about this, some
feel it is a move to take away the tank. (Must be an infantry general in
charge<grin>).
The intent of the new unit is to be able to put a full brigade into combat
anywhere
in the world within 96 hours of initial call-up, a division within 5
days and 5 divisions within 30 days. The Initial Brigade is to be operational
by October using a mixture of loaner and surrogate equipment until the final
decision is made on how to kit out the brigades. The whole thing is on a fast
track.
For comparison, it takes the 82d Airborne Division ready force (a battalion)
18 hours from the first knock on the door until wheels up and on the way
anywhere in the world. The first battalion (IRB) is on 2 hour callup at all
times with the second battalion on 6 hour and then the third and brigade slice
on 8 hour. Which means once those units are called in they go into the 18 hour
cycle. (Some of these times might have changed one way or another a little bit
since I was there but I know that the 18 hour cycle is still in force. So I
guess instead of worrying about replacing sheridans we'll just give them a
whole brigade of armor to go with them! <grin>
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Los wrote:
> Third Brigade, Second Infantry Division is the first with a second
Hmm, in the wake of the loss of AGS, I can see a medium brigade being better
off than a light with a few Hummers with heavy weapons.
> The intent of the new unit is to be able to put a full brigade into
Yeah, I read through the site. They had two prototypes there based on two
different light chassis. One was a new turret and armour on a Sheridan
Chassis, the other was a turreted tank on a M113 chassis.
> For comparison, it takes the 82d Airborne Division ready force (a
Certainly would give the 82 a bit more of a role than as a speed bump next
time they depoly in a hurry to a major conflict.
> I don't know I didn't write the specs, probably lighter, cheaper,
> would be very rapid deployment capable. Easily air transportable and is
> self deploying on roadmarch without all the extra maintenance that a
That's nailing a big one of the reasons on the head.
Self-deployability.
The LAV III that we're introducing here in service in Canada (as with all our
other wheeled combat vehicles) is not only light enough to deploy in a C130,
but it can deploy itself over long distances without any of the infrastructure
that you need to deploy tanks. I read somewhere that it is so expensive to run
the M1 that at their bases when moving distances greater than 2 or 3 miles,
they put the tank on a truck. This of course doesn't include training
exercises, but the point is important. The LAV III can drive on regular
highways (the Canadian ones are fully "road legal" with proper lights, and
licence plates) and fill up at a regular gas station if needed. Deploying a
tank two or three hundred miles to get to a
battle will wear out the tank - high attrition 'cause of thrown treads,
etc. These wheeled vehicles don't blink at that kind of thing. For an
"Armoured" brigade using all wheeled vehicles, the brigade logistical train
will be quite a bit smaller.
As to the "big guns" issue - why replace an M1 with a wheeled vehicle
with
a 25mm cannon? - as Los said, the Candian vehicles are on loan to allow
the US to have something close to what they're going to eventually get, to
develop tactics and doctrine. But you can get some pretty big guns on these
things. The Italian Centauro B1 is an 8 wheeled armoured vehicle that carries
a 105mm cannon (same type of gun as the M1 was initially fielded with). That's
a lot of punch. Sure they don't have anywhere near the armour of a vehicle
like the M1, but for a rapid deployable force, it's a lot better than a HMMWV
for survivability... In an emergency, they could
go toe-to-toe with an enemy tank force (especially if the enemy is of
the
Iraqi/North Korean kind with 1950's and '60's vintage Russian armour in
the majority).
Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what the US ends up deciding on. I think a
lot of armies will be moving toward this kind of unit and vehicle.
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> these things. The Italian Centauro B1 is an 8 wheeled armoured
The South Africans have one as well. They also have a similar set of APCs
(Buffels and Cascevals based on Unimog Chassis), IFVs (Ratels), and Tank
Destroyers (Rooikats).
RooiKat 105.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rooikat/index.html
> a lot better than a HMMWV for survivability... In an emergency, they
Depending on Doctrine and training, I can see a better led force winning
against such a force. Being better in training would help. Being able to
get past them and get inside their rear areas, would pretty much make it
possible to avoid fighting them fairly in the first place.
I'd love to see how a really well led (wiley commander types) could do with
fast wheeled AFVs against an armoured opponent. Catch him when he's
transporting and when he is resupplying and it could be hell for the tracked
guys.