Mini Abrams... [Archive] - Defence Talk Forum

swerve

December 6th, 2007, 10:32 AM

You could build a smaller tank with lighter armament, but it wouldn't be an Abrams or whatever.

As said, the gun isn't the big weight, & removing the loader means you need an autoloader. That can save weight, but it comes from reduced under-armour volume, hence less armour, not the autoloader being lighter than the man it replaces. To lose a lot of weight you have to look at reducing armour, which means making the tank smaller, or less well armoured. Or both.

If you're willing to accept a reduced ammunition load, you could build a tank with the same armour protection as the M1A2, but smaller. Start with the Jordanian Falcon unmanned turret, which has the relatively light 120mm RuAG CTG. 17 rounds in the autoloader & none in the hull, & 3 man crew below the turret ring. Smaller & lighter engine & transmission (note that the gas turbine of the M1 is relatively small & light, but the bits around it aren't: total powerpack & transmission size & weight is what matters here), because less weight to lug around, permitting a slightly smaller & therefore lighter hull.

I reckon you could save at least 10 tons, for the same level of protection. But it still wouldn't be lightweight, & there are tradeoffs, e.g. the reduced ammo load.

If you want a medium/light tank with less armour, then there are IFV variants (e.g. Cv90120-T, with same RuAG gun) on the market.

Chrom

December 6th, 2007, 10:47 AM

2 crews and humanless turret would allow about 37-40t tank be better armed & protected than M1A2.

lobbie111

December 6th, 2007, 08:43 PM

If only a Puma with a 105-120mm cannon

swerve

December 7th, 2007, 08:17 AM

If only a Puma with a 105-120mm cannon

Hull's too big, because it's designed to take several troops. Would need protected volume reduced to allow armour to be improved to the same level as a heavy tank.

You could probably use the automotive components of a Puma, but you'd need to replace almost all of the rest.

Waylander

December 7th, 2007, 11:37 AM

eckherl

December 7th, 2007, 06:42 PM

Please pick the CV120, and leave my tank alone.:)

rjmaz1

December 10th, 2007, 05:28 PM

And 2 man crew is going to loose a lot of efectiveness compared to a 3 man crew with todays technology.
Driving a tank alone during combat is a full time job. Add to that commanding, shooting, searching for targets, radio operations and maybe control over your platoon/company and you have much too much to do for a 2 men crew.
With todays sensor fusion, i believe two people could do the job fine.

Helmet cued gun with a helmet mounted display would significantly reduce the workload in my opinion.

A moving map with all the data placed nicely would reduce the cognitive workload significantly.

In a previously thread i designed a bushmaster tank in photoshop which was pretty cool.

My idea of simplifying a tank is to have the crew seated side by side, wrap around LCD screens providing a view outside. Having IR and Optical camera's and when light levels reduce the screens start overlaying the IR images.

Have a nice big moving map between the two crew members.

By giving the driver excellent situational awareness it allows him to drive with minimal input from the navigator.

The second crew member being the gunner/navigator could use their helmet to aim the gun and control sensors. Automation with other friendly's being displayed on the moving map and even the surround screens would help dramatically.

The side by side cabin would reduce the cabin space to a quarter of the current battle tank. This will push the weight right down to below 40 tone without any capability lost from the M1A2.

If you changed the turret to a 30mm cannon and added a say four anti tank missiles you'd now be reaching close to 30 tone.

By using a hyrbid electric system with electric motors powering each wheel running off batteries recharged by a small diesel engine then you give the tank silent running capabilities and a lower signature allowing it to get closer and lighter again. Now that the weight would be easily under 30 ton it would be possible to go with a 6x6 drive system instead of a tracked vehicle.

You'd now having something with the ability and speed of a humvee with armor of a tank and with its sensor advantage and anti tank missiles it could destroy enemy tanks that were many times heavier.

Though the US army vehicle program will probably use alot of features that i have listed.

Waylander

December 10th, 2007, 06:02 PM

This is not going to work.

I said that driving the tank is a fulltime job because of the terrain.
It is just damn difficult to drive a tank with high speed over rough ground without bumping into every ditch. Not to talk of orientating the front to the enemy, not falling behind or outrunning your the other tanks in your platoon.

And a TC is defenitely not going to let his driver planning the route were he wants to go.
The same goes for battle positions. A TC is going to have the better idea of the ideal firing position than the low sitting driver even if you would give the driver some kind of glass cockpit.

The next thing is target aquisition.
Right now the gunner is searching for enemy targets with usually 3x-12x optics. This is defenitely needed to track targets. Others here with experience on AFVs will agree with me that the gunner normally has an awfull low situational awareness and often enough has no clue about were he is.

So you your proposed navigator/gunner faces some big problems.
He may scan for targets with 3x-12x zoom and loose alot of his situational awareness or he may chose the situational awareness with normal 1x glass cockpit but looses alot of his ability to see enemy threats.
When he has to look on his map he can't do even one of the things above.

Another problem is how does one wants to achieve the zoom of 3x-12x with a glass cockpit.
His zoomed view has to be slaved to the main optic because of stabilization with the picture of the GPS projected into his viewfield and so offers little to no advantage over a classical gunner looking into his sight. Not to talk of aiming with a 12x zoom just with the precision of your neck muscles in a rough riding vehicle.

There are just too many things to do.
I know were you are coming from (fighterplanes) but this doesn't work the way you think.
All the guys here with actual experience in fighting with an AFV are going to tell you the same. One needs a minimum of 3 man or otherwise combat effectiveness is reduced significantly.

rjmaz1

December 10th, 2007, 08:10 PM

If you significantly improve the situational awareness of the driver then you allow the driver to make navigational decisions and offload the navigator of non tactical decisions. Having greater awareness or field of view of your environment makes it much easier for the driver to avoid bumping into every ditch.

If you significantly improve the situation awareness of the gunner then they will know where abouts they are in relation to their zoomed optic view. The reason why the gunner currently cannot navigate is because they have such a narrow field of view that it would make the job difficult. This is easily fixed in my opinion.

There is some overlap between the gunner, navigator and driver. The driver navigates in close range while the Navigator makes long range navigation etc. If you make the job significantly easier for the driver and gunner then they can take over more navigation functions to the point where the navigator could be eliminated without a noticeable decrease in capability. That slight decrease would be well worth the weight reduction.

Having the zoomed targeting optics overlayed onto the lcd displays allow the gunner to see where his gun is pointed relative to the vehicles position. The zoomed optics could be moved over the normal magnification images using helmet movement of the gunner. The microscope that i am using now can have its image displayed on a computer screen at more than 2000x2000 pixels and the refresh rate is excellent. Fatigue is significantly reduced looking at a lcd screen than staring down a microscope. The gunners situational awareness would dramatically improve to the point where he could take up the longer range and tactical navigational role. However the tactical navigation should and probably already is outsourced to a someone thousands of miles from the battlefield. The driver also being able to see the gunners sights and know where the enemy is will further improve his ability to point/driver the tank in the right direction.

The moving map could even be displayed on the glass cockpit screens.

With the way automation is going i could see the workload being significantly reduced. Some mercedes bends automatically apply the brakes if you get too close to the car in front, technology like this could allow the tank to practically drive itself allowing him to help navigate.

I get where you are coming from that the workload is quite great, but with well thought out automation i think performance would not reduce and the weight/logistic savings would be massive.

Waylander

December 10th, 2007, 08:44 PM

If you significantly improve the situational awareness of the driver then you allow the driver to make navigational decisions and offload the navigator of non tactical decisions. This will make it much easier for the driver to avoid bumping into every ditch.

With a tank nearly every movement is a tactical decision (Apart from preplanned (road)marches).
And you don't jump into ditches because you haven't navigated carefully enough but because the terrain is difficult and/or you weren't concentrated enough.
I just can say it again. A driver can drive and that's it.
A glass cockpit may make it easier for him to drive and one may also improve decision making by the driver but it is still a full time job.

If you significantly improve the situation awareness of the gunner then they will know where abouts they are in relation to their zoomed optic view.

There is some overlap between the gunner, navigator and driver. The driver navigates in close range while the Navigator makes long range navigation etc. If you make the job significantly easier for the driver and gunner then they can take over more navigation functions to the point where the navigator could be eliminated without a noticeable decrease in capability. That slight decrease would be well worth the weight reduction.

Having the zoomed targeting optics overlayed onto the lcd displays allow the gunner to see where his gun is pointed relative to the vehicles position. It would dramatically improve his situational awareness to the point where he could take up the longer range and tactical navigational role. However the tactical navigation should and probably already is outsourced to a someone thousands of miles from the battlefield. The driver also being able to see the gunners sights and know where the enemy is will further improve his ability to point/driver the tank in the right direction.

But one can just concentrate so much on one thing. I don't say that it isn't possible to use a 2 man crew. But effectiveness is going to be reduced. Reduced a lot.
Even with overlayed pictures on the displays one has to do share it's concentration and awareness to two nearly totally different tasks.
A TC has to look around a lot while the gunner has to scan his sector. It is just damn difficult to identify targets at that distance even with capable optics and you want to share the available concentration and time between two fulltime jobs.
As for outside tactical navigation. This is exactly the wrong way and every leader is not going to let the tactical decisions be made from a HQ miles away.
This is nearly the total opposite of Auftragstaktik and is the vision of hell for every leader in the field.

The moving map could even be displayed on the glass cockpit screens.

Did you ever performed navigation with the help of a military map? Even in the time of GPS it is not enough to just have a quick look at a displayed map. And while battlefield management systems improve the ability to plan and navigate your movement and the movement of your unit it still needs a lot more than a qhick look. It is bad enough if you jump into the sh** while your TC is reading the map but you are even more screwed if this TC is also your gunner...

With the way automation is going i could see the workload being significantly reduced. Some mercedes bends automatically apply the brakes if you get too close to the car in front, technology like this could.

I get where you are coming from that the workload is quite great, but with well thought out automation i think performance would not reduce and the weight/logistic savings would be massive.

Yeah, I also remember how the ground UAV tests donated by the US MoD looked like.
I also know how for example the new automatic parking for modern cars works.

This is still far away from being what you do with a tank during a fight.

I still don't get what makes you think that the loss of combat effectiveness is insignificant.

I really hate to use the "been there done that" argument and I wait for other members who also served on AFVs to also add their opinion
But I would like to know if you have ever served on an AFV or if you know somebody who did and told you that it shouldn't be a problem?
Because I just have the feeling that you underestimate the special problems which come with fighting with a tank because you tend to directly convert ideas from air combat to ground combat.

Wooki

December 10th, 2007, 09:29 PM

Please pick the CV120, and leave my tank alone.:)
No, no sorry, can't do that Eckherl...lets turn it into an EFV! och, we can use a new SEM system to make it air droppable too. Perfect.

cheers

w

AGRA

December 10th, 2007, 09:45 PM

You could pull out all the special armour packages from an M1A1 AIM and/or M1A2 from the turret front and glacis. They are mounted in steel ‘pockets’ that are basically the outer and inner edges of the vehicles exterior wall. This would lower the weight of an M1 by a classified amount but reduce armour protection to just basically bullet proof (~12.7mm). But its not going to be much more than a 10-15 tonne weight saving.

If you want a light tank then design it from scratch and the best way to lower weight is to reduce interior volume, therefore reducing the amount of armour needed for protection. Though the reasons giving by the thread creator would indicate a lack of understanding of actual M1 tank performance and capability. Simple reducing weight is not going to give you significantly more mobility or practical deployability. You want to significantly increase mobility then design a tank with a width of 2m. Such a beast would be able to go places no one else can, like up an alleyway!

The FCS MGV MCS will have a two man crew and a 120mm gun and ammunition of better performance than that on the M1A1/A2. It will achieve tank performance with only two people because like all MGVs it will be able to drive itself, including tactical driving and navigation.

Talk about rebuilding M1A1 AIM and/or M1A2s is looking at fitting a Western Design automatic loader. This will reduce stored rounds from 40 to 34 but free up the loader/operator to be a deputy commander. This crew person will operate a roof top remote controlled machinegun (or 25mm OCSW) and assist the commander in the kind of complex battles of Iraq and so on.

Of course with the MCS the improved means of controlling the tank’s functions and automatic detail control will mean the two person crew will function very much like the commander and “deputy commander” of an M1A3 with the driver, gunner and loader’s roles automated.

rjmaz1

December 11th, 2007, 12:38 AM

I really hate to use the "been there done that" argument and I wait for other members who also served on AFVs to also add their opinion
But I would like to know if you have ever served on an AFV or if you know somebody who did and told you that it shouldn't be a problem?
Because I just have the feeling that you underestimate the special problems which come with fighting with a tank because you tend to directly convert ideas from air combat to ground combat.
Well if AGRA's post is correct regarding the next tank only having 2 crew members then you've over estimated the workload or underestimated how far automation technology has progressed.

Technology is progressing so much that current members serving in the armed forced wouldn't have a clue if automation could reduce the number of crew members. The equipment they currently use has little to no automation which would probably come down to money.

If you want a light tank then design it from scratch and the best way to lower weight is to reduce interior volume, therefore reducing the amount of armour needed for protection.
Yep thats the best idea. Two crew members sitting side by side would reduce the volume so much that you've halved the weight right there without a reduction in armor or firepower.

You want to significantly increase mobility then design a tank with a width of 2m. Such a beast would be able to go places no one else can, like up an alleyway!
A two man side by side crew may very well achieve a 2m wide tank. That would be pretty good for mobility :)

I wouldn't be surprised if the future tanks have the same size footprint of a humvee with the armor and firepower of a M1A2. Weight may reach a third of an M1A2.

You are definitely correct in stating that reducing interior is the only way to reduce weight. Decreased volume reduces the surface area of the armor required reducing weight. This is much better than reducing the thickness of the armor to reduce weight.

Even if there happened to be a 10-20% reduction in capability due to having two crew members the massive logistical advantage of reduced weight and fuel consumption would allow for twice as many vehicles to be used making the overall battalion much more powerful/capable while still maintaining a lower battalion weight.

Waylander

December 11th, 2007, 03:15 AM

Yeah, as if one can use the promises of the FCS program as given facts...

This program is known for being fully in time and producing all the new technologies it promised...

Before there isn't a fully working prototype with all the promised features I don't clap my hands for the FCS.
And till than it is still lots of time to go.

I thought we are talking about designing a vehicle now.
If you want FCS (Which is going to be smaller than everything before) you have to wait for FCS.

Future tanks having the footprint of a Humvee with the same firepower and protection?
Of how far in the future do you think we are talking about?
Not that long ago they dropped the C-130 requirement. Makes you think about the "small will be as capable" argument.
And FCS is a lot more ambitious than everything else in this aspect.

As for 10-20% capability gap. These 10-20% may kill you and you don't expect that you field twice as many vehicles of these expensive vehicles just because they are lighter don't you?

What are we talking about here?
What one can achieve with todays (Or the one of the next few years) tech or what one may achieve later in the future?

The new target weight for FCS is round 28 tons because one wants to get 3 of them into a C-17.

But they still want to let the Abrams serve as late as 2050 (With M1A3 upgrade program) in the heavy brigades.
Makes one wonder how much armor protection they really expect from the lightweigth vehicle family...

Sgt.Banes

December 11th, 2007, 12:09 PM

It wouldn't be much of a tank with this armour bulk, I think you want to make an APC that's more like a tank or vice versa. The thing that you're shooting for is an IFV or a "Tiny Tank" as I like to call it. But a tank that carries soldiers is a little redundant since then it would be considered an APC. Tanks are designed to be "bulky" for a reason.

gf0012-aust

December 11th, 2007, 05:11 PM

This is much better than reducing the thickness of the armor to reduce weight.

Even if there happened to be a 10-20% reduction in capability due to having two crew members the massive logistical advantage of reduced weight and fuel consumption would allow for twice as many vehicles to be used making the overall battalion much more powerful/capable while still maintaining a lower battalion weight.

Well, Wooki is the resident real world armour expert, but there needs to be some clarification here.

Armour thickness is a relative concept, ie, an armour rating is benched against a relative RHA (or appropriate/similar) level. It's not literal.

In addition, the issue of mass as a medium is because its not just an issue of penetration - its also an issue of kinetic effect.

eg. when we did proximity tests for the S600's the armour thickness rating was identical to early Bushmaster but was a different thickness. Thats because the armour type used was of different material. (same STANAG rating, but a different efficiency level wrt absolute thickness)

similarly, when direct fire tests were conducted, a lighter vehicle will be subjected to movement. Enough movement and you start to impact upon the integrity of other equipment like optics, FCS etc... that means changes to acoustic, noise and vibration management - and that means a loss of volume due to more robust bracing.

or to use another example, the direct fire tests of metalstorm against a lighter vehicle resulted in visible movement of mass - when directed against a larger vehicle, less movement was visibly apparent.

There is a reason why you have heavy armoured vehicles, it is not always relevant to reduce it down to an medium lift air transportable package. Change the mass and you change the fundamental options and capability of that platform.

You could literally have 3 platforms with a "declared" RHA of 1100mm but discover that alll 3 are physically very different in thickness of the armour material. The internal volume in simplistic terms would be different for all 3, but not at a significant level. The significant influencer/impediment to increasing volumetric dynamics is protection of the crew and the equipment beyond the first layer (exoskeleton of the platform)

It's not a simple volumetric efficiency/armour rating dynamic.

AGRA

December 11th, 2007, 09:13 PM

I thought we are talking about designing a vehicle now.
If you want FCS (Which is going to be smaller than everything before) you have to wait for FCS.

FCS is designing vehicles and systems now and for an initial in service date of 2015ish. Not going to get anything into service quicker than that…

And key technologies are being demonstrated, like the autonomous driving systems and multi-platform sensor fusion. Auto trackers able to do the job of a gunner after target designation by the commander are commonplace and in service in a wide range of applications. Even automatic target identification and prosecution software is common.

Future tanks having the footprint of a Humvee with the same firepower and protection?
Of how far in the future do you think we are talking about?
Not that long ago they dropped the C-130 requirement. Makes you think about the "small will be as capable" argument.
And FCS is a lot more ambitious than everything else in this aspect.

FCS is ambitious because it is not conventional. It is the first combat vehicle designed from the ground up with a hybrid powerplant. Electrical transmission provides huge weight and volume savings. The C-130 requirement was dropped because it was nonsense – the problem is not so much designing a tank to fit inside a C-130 but to be able to get any practical military benefit by operational deployment in a C-130. Now if we had C-130 sized VTOLs that would be different.

The new target weight for FCS is round 28 tons because one wants to get 3 of them into a C-17.

Not at all. Its 27 tonnes because that’s loads of armour and capability for an FCS sized vehicle. You can still strip it down to a 18 tonne configuration for loading into a C-130. But its really meaningless stuff.

But they still want to let the Abrams serve as late as 2050 (With M1A3 upgrade program) in the heavy brigades.
Makes one wonder how much armor protection they really expect from the lightweigth vehicle family...

The FCS will be much better protected than the M1. M1 will remain in service until 2050 because the US will not be buying FCS at a rate fast enough to replace them before this date. Gone are the days of Lima turning out 1,000 M1 tanks a year.

A two man side by side crew may very well achieve a 2m wide tank. That would be pretty good for mobility :)

Well probably not. But sit those two crew in tandem and you could have a <2m width tank. After the Lebanon War the IDF armor corps feedback process on the Merkava came up with “reduce the width” as one of the strongest desires of the operational tank crews. Of course no one has done anything to reduce the width of tanks since the T-34… the problem being track area and ground pressure.

You are definitely correct in stating that reducing interior is the only way to reduce weight. Decreased volume reduces the surface area of the armor required reducing weight. This is much better than reducing the thickness of the armor to reduce weight.

Well it’s the only way to do it from a design process. Improved lighter weight technology will also reduce weight.

But reducing interior volume was the very successful idea behind Sven Berge’s Strv 103 ‘S-Tank’. By removing the turret and fixing the gun inside the hull they achieved a tank with the same armour thickness, fire power, etc as a Centurion at only 40 tonnes compared to 55 tonnes. Said tank could also be fully operated (moved and gun aimed and fired) in an emergency by only one person. Operational testing by an independent third party – the British Army in the early 1970s – found that removing the turret made no appreciable loss of efficiency in all combat scenarios, including offensive operations.

Waylander

December 12th, 2007, 02:21 AM

From AGRA:
FCS is designing vehicles and systems now and for an initial in service date of 2015ish. Not going to get anything into service quicker than that…

And key technologies are being demonstrated, like the autonomous driving systems and multi-platform sensor fusion. Auto trackers able to do the job of a gunner after target designation by the commander are commonplace and in service in a wide range of applications. Even automatic target identification and prosecution software is common.

Yeah, with how much cost overrun and introduction delay?
Till now the FCS program produced the NLOS-C which is, apart from its weight, everything but not revolutionary. In the end it is not even on par capability wise with the rest of the modern SPHs.

As I said. I thought we are talking about available technology. Could you please give me a source for the demonstration of auotnomous driving systems under combat conditions?
I expect that automatic target identification/gunnering is doin some nice advances but there is still the question of how the TC is going to designate the targets without having to put a lot of concentration onto a hefty magnification.

FCS is ambitious because it is not conventional. It is the first combat vehicle designed from the ground up with a hybrid powerplant. Electrical transmission provides huge weight and volume savings. The C-130 requirement was dropped because it was nonsense – the problem is not so much designing a tank to fit inside a C-130 but to be able to get any practical military benefit by operational deployment in a C-130. Now if we had C-130 sized VTOLs that would be different.

They dropped the C-130 requirement because they don't get all the nice stuff and protection into one tiny chassis.
If they would be able to develop it they wouldn't have changed the C-130 requirement.
To say now that they dropped the C-130 requirement just because the C-130 idea is nonsense and not because the "we can build such a small ubertank"-idea is nonsense is a little dubious...

Not at all. Its 27 tonnes because that’s loads of armour and capability for an FCS sized vehicle. You can still strip it down to a 18 tonne configuration for loading into a C-130. But its really meaningless stuff.

Strip it down to 18 tonnes? By removing the turret and tires/tracks or what?

The FCS will be much better protected than the M1. M1 will remain in service until 2050 because the US will not be buying FCS at a rate fast enough to replace them before this date. Gone are the days of Lima turning out 1,000 M1 tanks a year.

It will?
In 2010 we will introduce the Puma. By 2015 the US hopes to introduce the FCS.
Right now the Puma needs more than 40 tons to get a really got protection for an IFV but it is still far away from MBT protection.
And the US wants to achieve more than current MBT protection with a 27 tons platform just 5 years later?
Even with weight saving of a hybrid powerplant design I just don't believe that this is possible.
And active/passive protection system are not an argument because they are or will also be fielded by todays systems or more conventional systems of the future.

Well it’s the only way to do it from a design process. Improved lighter weight technology will also reduce weight.

But reducing interior volume was the very successful idea behind Sven Berge’s Strv 103 ‘S-Tank’. By removing the turret and fixing the gun inside the hull they achieved a tank with the same armour thickness, fire power, etc as a Centurion at only 40 tonnes compared to 55 tonnes. Said tank could also be fully operated (moved and gun aimed and fired) in an emergency by only one person. Operational testing by an independent third party – the British Army in the early 1970s – found that removing the turret made no appreciable loss of efficiency in all combat scenarios, including offensive operations.

You should also mention that crew efficiency of the S-Tank was by no means on par with a real tank with more crewmen.

Pusser01

December 12th, 2007, 03:52 AM

eckherl

December 12th, 2007, 07:08 PM

There is no way that we will be able to offer better protection levels of a M1A2 or A3 in a vehicle that weighs 27 tons, not when getting into slugging matches with other heavies.

eckherl

December 12th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Could the M8 Armoured Gun System that the US army cancelled in the late
90's be a contender for this idea? If I recall it had a 105mm gun and 3 person crew. Does anyone know why it was cancelled, was it due to price or changing capability requirements?
Cheers

Program was scrapped due to cost of vehicle and armor protection levels, when we were ready to roll it out for the 82nd Airborne it was already obsolete by todays standards.

AGRA

December 12th, 2007, 11:16 PM

There is no way that we will be able to offer better protection levels of a M1A2 or A3 in a vehicle that weighs 27 tons, not when getting into slugging matches with other heavies.

The Quik Kill APS will just shoot down the enemy tanks KE slugs before they even hit the FCS. Sounds like good protection to me... Ohh yes and with 20-40 or even more shots available thats plenty to survive in any tactical situation.

AGRA

December 12th, 2007, 11:36 PM

Till now the FCS program produced the NLOS-C which is, apart from its weight, everything but not revolutionary. In the end it is not even on par capability wise with the rest of the modern SPHs.

FCS hasn’t actually produced NLOS-C yet, it has produced NLOS-LS but. Sure NLOS-C is nothing special as an artillery system (though firing nothing but Excaliburs it is better than any in service PzH2000) however that is because it is Rumsfeld’s bastard love child. If XM2001 Crusader had entered service the US Army would have by far the world’s best 155mm SPH. But Rummy cancelled the 155mm L56 XM2001 and mandated the 155mm L38 NLOS-C in its place.

As I said. I thought we are talking about available technology. Could you please give me a source for the demonstration of auotnomous driving systems under combat conditions?

Well the systems haven’t been deployed – yet – but look at the ‘desert challenge’ and now ‘urban challenge’ UGV trials. Autonomous driving systems outperforming humans in tough driving and navigation conditions.

They dropped the C-130 requirement because they don't get all the nice stuff and protection into one tiny chassis.
If they would be able to develop it they wouldn't have changed the C-130 requirement.
To say now that they dropped the C-130 requirement just because the C-130 idea is nonsense and not because the "we can build such a small ubertank"-idea is nonsense is a little dubious...

Again, the C-130 hasn’t been dropped. But they have added a modular level of armour protection, just like Puma. The reason they went for more armour is because they released the need wasn’t there. Dude I know the FCS PMs and have spoken to them about this, continue to consider any information I have gleaned from them dubious as long as it contradicts your personal view of the world.

Strip it down to 18 tonnes? By removing the turret and tires/tracks or what?

Modular armour suites and so on tht simply bolt from the exterior. Also like most airlift loads without onboard ammunition, fuel, crew, stores and passengers.

In 2010 we will introduce the Puma. By 2015 the US hopes to introduce the FCS.
Right now the Puma needs more than 40 tons to get a really got protection for an IFV but it is still far away from MBT protection.
And the US wants to achieve more than current MBT protection with a 27 tons platform just 5 years later?
Even with weight saving of a hybrid powerplant design I just don't believe that this is possible.

Believe away it’s your life. But the FCS MGV is a much smaller vehicle than Puma. Puma has a big 30 litre engine, FCS only a 5 litre engine.

And active/passive protection system are not an argument because they are or will also be fielded by todays systems or more conventional systems of the future.

Really, that’s nice of the world to play fair for the benefit of you. But FCS MGVs are being designed to enter service with Quick Kill. What APS does Puma have? What Hard Kill APS systems do threat vehicles have? None.

You should also mention that crew efficiency of the S-Tank was by no means on par with a real tank with more crewmen.

The Brits didn’t seem to think so. Of course one may have found fault with the Swedish conscript crews of S-Tanks with only 6 months service compared to West German crews with a professional tank commander. As for keeping the vehicle maintained the problem with the S-Tank was that its hydraulic drive and suspension system required a lot more maintenance than conventional tanks. The solution to vehicle maintenance is just to provide additional resources to non-crew maintenance. If you reduce your tank crews from 4 to 2 then that should make available about 100 additional men in a battalion/regiment for service as dedicated repairers or ‘pit stop’ like FRAP crews.

Certainly the combat experience of Australian armour crews is such that after one battle the crews need to be replaced for rest and recuperation anyway. Keeping tank crews in a tank 24-7 for the duration of a campaign is hugely wasteful of the tanks fighting potential. Like saying to a fighter pilot that he is the only one allowed to fly a plane and between missions he and only he has to rearm, refuel and repair it.

Waylander

December 13th, 2007, 11:15 AM

FCS hasn’t actually produced NLOS-C yet, it has produced NLOS-LS but. Sure NLOS-C is nothing special as an artillery system (though firing nothing but Excaliburs it is better than any in service PzH2000) however that is because it is Rumsfeld’s bastard love child. If XM2001 Crusader had entered service the US Army would have by far the world’s best 155mm SPH. But Rummy cancelled the 155mm L56 XM2001 and mandated the 155mm L38 NLOS-C in its place.

First I put show this article from DefenseNews.com:
U.S. Army To Buy 18 NLOS Cannons Separately From FCS
Posted 12/10/07 17:27
By KRIS OSBORN

The U.S. Army will buy its first 18 Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannons for $505.2 million (in 2003 dollars) in a separate effort from the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program that developed the 27-ton hybrid electric armored vehicles.

The move, which was directed by Defense Acquisition Undersecretary John Young in a Dec. 1 memo, is intended to free money for other FCS acquisitions and to meet a congressional requirement to deploy the NLOS weapon by 2010.

“It approves a separate acquisition strategy for the cannon, which is still managed out of the FCS office,” FCS spokesman Paul Meheny said.
Defense News obtained a copy of the memo.

The DoD Appropriations Acts of 2005, 2006 and 2007 mandate that the NLOS-C be deployed by 2010.

The first practical effect of the move will come in 2009, when the first large-scale production decisions are made for FCS technologies.

“NLOS-C SpI program decisions do not constitute production decisions for FCS or for any part of the FCS program,” Young’s memo said.

Here they defenitely talk about NLOS-C. Not to talk about the hefty price...

The NLOS-C is going to just fire Excalibur rounds? Do you have a source for that?
BTW, I wouldn't call something which only fires Excalibur rounds better than current modern SPHs.
Can you imagine the look of a FAO ordering a ToT slavo, some blinding fire, or surpression fire or a massive strike onto larger groups of enemies.
And the only thing they offer to him consists of a low number of expensive Excalibur rounds?
And an Excalibur round fired from a PzH2000 is going tom perform better than fired from NLOS-C

Well the systems haven’t been deployed – yet – but look at the ‘desert challenge’ and now ‘urban challenge’ UGV trials. Autonomous driving systems outperforming humans in tough driving and navigation conditions.

Outperforming?
I have seen that on TV and nothing there outperformed a human driver let alone showe dthe capability to perform effective combat driving with an AFV in a battle situation.

Modular armour suites and so on tht simply bolt from the exterior. Also like most airlift loads without onboard ammunition, fuel, crew, stores and passengers.

Ok this point goes to you. But it compromises the idea of the FCS vehicles rolling out of the plane and being ready for combat within 30 minutes.

Really, that’s nice of the world to play fair for the benefit of you. But FCS MGVs are being designed to enter service with Quick Kill. What APS does Puma have? What Hard Kill APS systems do threat vehicles have? None.

Russians and Chinese vehicle designers already have active and passive systems in place and are (as well as the europeans and Israelis) very active in developing new ones.
In Germany alone AWiSS and ADS are nearing final development and MUSS passive protection system is already on Puma with room and wiring for active protection systems.
As for threat vehicles. There are not many more suplliers than Russia, China, Europe and Israel for vehicles and vehicle systems and all of them offer or are close to offer active protection systems to customers.

And hoping that a (tumbling) modern KE penetrator with a blunted nose or cracked back is going to be stopped by IFV like armor is also a nice hope. Even a damaged KE (Especially the self sharpening ones) has a lot of energy left.

The Brits didn’t seem to think so. Of course one may have found fault with the Swedish conscript crews of S-Tanks with only 6 months service compared to West German crews with a professional tank commander. As for keeping the vehicle maintained the problem with the S-Tank was that its hydraulic drive and suspension system required a lot more maintenance than conventional tanks. The solution to vehicle maintenance is just to provide additional resources to non-crew maintenance. If you reduce your tank crews from 4 to 2 then that should make available about 100 additional men in a battalion/regiment for service as dedicated repairers or ‘pit stop’ like FRAP crews.

Certainly the combat experience of Australian armour crews is such that after one battle the crews need to be replaced for rest and recuperation anyway. Keeping tank crews in a tank 24-7 for the duration of a campaign is hugely wasteful of the tanks fighting potential. Like saying to a fighter pilot that he is the only one allowed to fly a plane and between missions he and only he has to rearm, refuel and repair it.

The S-tank is a great tank hunter with a low silouette and the ability to shoot and get the hell out of there but lacks target aquisition and effectiveness in a highly mobile environment like the one MBTs and IFVs are engaged in.

As for the advantages of less cre members.
Great. Producing a smaller vehicle which allows more rapid deployment by the current fleet of C-17s and C-5s just to add a burden to the air transport by adding a lot of extra repair/maintenance/service crews and their equipment...

And hoping for the ability to exchange crews after some time is also more wishfull thinking than anything else. Even the most modern examples (OIF) showed that a crew has to fight and live in/around their vehicles for a long time.
For sure combat effectiveness rises if crews are exchanged as often as possible the problem is just that it may not be possible very often in anything else than small engagements.

eckherl

December 13th, 2007, 03:14 PM

The Quik Kill APS will just shoot down the enemy tanks KE slugs before they even hit the FCS. Sounds like good protection to me... Ohh yes and with 20-40 or even more shots available thats plenty to survive in any tactical situation.

APS system is not even perfected yet to a level to be used in a high intensity combat scenario as of yet but yes, when they do have it perfected it will be one heck of a achievement.

AGRA

December 13th, 2007, 11:01 PM

First I put show this article from DefenseNews.com:
Here they defenitely talk about NLOS-C. Not to talk about the hefty price...

This is a low rate initial production order for NLOS-C, all LRIP orders are very high priced, cost decreases as production volumes increase. The way the FCS program works is a spiral development of various systems. Once they are ready for production over the next 10 years they will be ordered at different times. However the spend is going in now on the development of the various systems.

http://www.army.mil/fcs/

The NLOS-C is going to just fire Excalibur rounds? Do you have a source for that?

FAMAG

BTW, I wouldn't call something which only fires Excalibur rounds better than current modern SPHs.
Can you imagine the look of a FAO ordering a ToT slavo, some blinding fire, or surpression fire or a massive strike onto larger groups of enemies.
And the only thing they offer to him consists of a low number of expensive Excalibur rounds?
And an Excalibur round fired from a PzH2000 is going tom perform better than fired from NLOS-C

Excalibur can fire all those missions. Of course where dispersion is not an issue due to a need for mass fires then it can just fire conventional ammo. But don’t get me wrong a L56 or even L52 system would be much better than NLOS-C’s L38. But you’re not going to see that much of a difference in artillery performance. Since the longer barrels just give you added range the high use of Excalibur in NLOS-C provides much better performance at long range through a L38 barrel than conventional ammunition through a L52. Sure PzH2000 can fire Excalibur but is the German Army planning on acquiring any of it? All things are not equal.

Outperforming?
I have seen that on TV and nothing there outperformed a human driver let alone showe dthe capability to perform effective combat driving with an AFV in a battle situation.

FCS MGVs (and UGVs) will use the General Dynamics Robitic Systems (GDRS) Autonomous Navigation System (ANS). This is funded with US $237M until March 2013. It has been extensively tested and proven to date, including Demo III that reached TRL 6 tests in rolling, arid environments, vegetated terrains, and urban terrains.

The clock is ticking… Plus remember a software driven driving system (nice pun, ehh) does not get tired, does not scared and operates at optimal performance until the power is switched off.

Ok this point goes to you. But it compromises the idea of the FCS vehicles rolling out of the plane and being ready for combat within 30 minutes.

This isn’t a debate. This is no different to the condition most vehicles are transported in. Of course the idea that vehicles roll off the back of a plane and into combat has a lot more to do with airports and so on, which is why its complete nonsense and seems to have died away as a serious argument in professional defence halls by now.

Russians and Chinese vehicle designers already have active and passive systems in place and are (as well as the europeans and Israelis) very active in developing new ones. In Germany alone AWiSS and ADS are nearing final development and MUSS passive protection system is already on Puma with room and wiring for active protection systems.
As for threat vehicles. There are not many more suplliers than Russia, China, Europe and Israel for vehicles and vehicle systems and all of them offer or are close to offer active protection systems to customers.

I said Hard Kill APS, which counts out the Russians and Chinese who have just produced crappy single shot area kill systems, that are good for a single TOW missile and that’s about it. Even the Israeli and German systems lack that broad response capability of Quick Kill. They are very much tailored to stopping a handful of ATGM type threats. Quick Kill can do everything from point blank RPGs (as close as they can be fired to arm the warhead fuse) to barrages of KE penetrators, from all angles of attack. The only limitation is how big a magazine you carry, since these are rather small packages (size of a 76mm smoke grenade launcher) and are vertically launched quite a large arsenal can be carried in the turret bustle or other spots.

And hoping that a (tumbling) modern KE penetrator with a blunted nose or cracked back is going to be stopped by IFV like armor is also a nice hope. Even a damaged KE (Especially the self sharpening ones) has a lot of energy left.

Quick Kill will put the KE penetrator into the ground well away from the target MGV.

The S-tank is a great tank hunter with a low silouette and the ability to shoot and get the hell out of there but lacks target aquisition and effectiveness in a highly mobile environment like the one MBTs and IFVs are engaged in.

It was the first tank in service with a hunter-killer commander-gunner sighting arrangement… For its time, the 1960s and 70s it was a very effective tank in both defensive and offensive scenarios. This was proved in exercises with NATO operated by the British Army. Apply opinions elsewhere please in the face of hard evidence to the contary.

As for the advantages of less cre members.
Great. Producing a smaller vehicle which allows more rapid deployment by the current fleet of C-17s and C-5s just to add a burden to the air transport by adding a lot of extra repair/maintenance/service crews and their equipment...

Who cares, its got nothing to do with C-17s and C-5s. Smaller vehicles means one thing – lighter weight. This means smaller engines, less fuel consumables, more bridge crossing, less cost, etc, etc.

Then of course with a vehicle like FCS MGV MCS with a two man crew is that bad? We are not talking about operating a Leopard II or M1 with two men. It’s a different tank. Track maintenance? It has a single piece rubber band track… Transmission maintenance? Its all-electric… Engine maintenance? 5L constant speed vs 30-40L turbo charged… The exterior surface area is even less so less time is needed to clean it.

Is any of this getting through? This is not YOUR tank, it’s a totally different beast…

And hoping for the ability to exchange crews after some time is also more wishfull thinking than anything else. Even the most modern examples (OIF) showed that a crew has to fight and live in/around their vehicles for a long time.
For sure combat effectiveness rises if crews are exchanged as often as possible the problem is just that it may not be possible very often in anything else than small engagements.

OIF tank crews had plenty of time to change crews if they were available. The idea is you spend 12-24 hours in the tank and then exchange. Its not exchanges every 2-4 hours.

AGRA

December 13th, 2007, 11:03 PM

APS system is not even perfected yet to a level to be used in a high intensity combat scenario as of yet but yes, when they do have it perfected it will be one heck of a achievement.

Yes they have. For the kind of modern computer controlled hard kill APS systems high intensity combat is simply a matter of having larger magazines. The Russian Dzord type APS of course are useless for anything other than the first ATGM fired at them. But the likes of Quick Kill will have no problems dealing with barrages of large number of simultaneous attacks.

eckherl

December 13th, 2007, 11:30 PM

Yes they have. For the kind of modern computer controlled hard kill APS systems high intensity combat is simply a matter of having larger magazines. The Russian Dzord type APS of course are useless for anything other than the first ATGM fired at them. But the likes of Quick Kill will have no problems dealing with barrages of large number of simultaneous attacks.

And you are now making the statement that it is perfected to a point that it will lock in and counter multiple KE projectiles all at once and give you a high success rate of countering them or are you thinking more in terms of ATGMs.

Waylander

December 14th, 2007, 08:02 AM

This is a low rate initial production order for NLOS-C, all LRIP orders are very high priced, cost decreases as production volumes increase. The way the FCS program works is a spiral development of various systems. Once they are ready for production over the next 10 years they will be ordered at different times. However the spend is going in now on the development of the various systems.

http://www.army.mil/fcs/

The problem is not the price of pre-series vehicles but that they don't fund them out of the FCS budget because of the ever increasing need of money of the FCS program.

Excalibur can fire all those missions. Of course where dispersion is not an issue due to a need for mass fires then it can just fire conventional ammo. But don’t get me wrong a L56 or even L52 system would be much better than NLOS-C’s L38. But you’re not going to see that much of a difference in artillery performance. Since the longer barrels just give you added range the high use of Excalibur in NLOS-C provides much better performance at long range through a L38 barrel than conventional ammunition through a L52. Sure PzH2000 can fire Excalibur but is the German Army planning on acquiring any of it? All things are not equal.

It is fine to compare Excalibur with plain normal HEs fired from a PzH2000.
But maybe one should also consider the other ammo fired from a PzH2000 like SMArt or extended range.

And it is not just range where a NLOS-C lacks. It is also rate of fire, onboard ammo and survivability in the face of counterfire.

And still I say one cannot really count ammo as an example of individual performance.
Or do you think the US would deny it's export if, for example, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany would ask for it?

FCS MGVs (and UGVs) will use the General Dynamics Robitic Systems (GDRS) Autonomous Navigation System (ANS). This is funded with US $237M until March 2013. It has been extensively tested and proven to date, including Demo III that reached TRL 6 tests in rolling, arid environments, vegetated terrains, and urban terrains.

The clock is ticking… Plus remember a software driven driving system (nice pun, ehh) does not get tired, does not scared and operates at optimal performance until the power is switched off.

Ok, than we wait till 2013 if this program goes well.
Are all the sensors required for it going to survive an artillery barrage?

This isn’t a debate. This is no different to the condition most vehicles are transported in. Of course the idea that vehicles roll off the back of a plane and into combat has a lot more to do with airports and so on, which is why its complete nonsense and seems to have died away as a serious argument in professional defence halls by now.

For sure it is nonsense. I never argumented for it.
Nevertheless this was also advertised as an advantage of the FCS systems.

I said Hard Kill APS, which counts out the Russians and Chinese who have just produced crappy single shot area kill systems, that are good for a single TOW missile and that’s about it. Even the Israeli and German systems lack that broad response capability of Quick Kill. They are very much tailored to stopping a handful of ATGM type threats. Quick Kill can do everything from point blank RPGs (as close as they can be fired to arm the warhead fuse) to barrages of KE penetrators, from all angles of attack. The only limitation is how big a magazine you carry, since these are rather small packages (size of a 76mm smoke grenade launcher) and are vertically launched quite a large arsenal can be carried in the turret bustle or other spots.

At least Iron Fist as well as ADS say that they also perform against KE threats.
And why should the explosion of Quick Kill be better suited for defeating a KE than any other of the new APS?

Quick Kill will put the KE penetrator into the ground well away from the target MGV.

I've seen a test video of Quick Kill. Well away is not what In would call it...

Who cares, its got nothing to do with C-17s and C-5s. Smaller vehicles means one thing – lighter weight. This means smaller engines, less fuel consumables, more bridge crossing, less cost, etc, etc.

Then of course with a vehicle like FCS MGV MCS with a two man crew is that bad? We are not talking about operating a Leopard II or M1 with two men. It’s a different tank. Track maintenance? It has a single piece rubber band track… Transmission maintenance? Its all-electric… Engine maintenance? 5L constant speed vs 30-40L turbo charged… The exterior surface area is even less so less time is needed to clean it.

Is any of this getting through? This is not YOUR tank, it’s a totally different beast…

Fine, you totally avoided adressing the points I made.
YOU said that you just add a lot of extra service personal. This is a burden for any air deployment as well as the actual combat vehicles and you cannot just erase them out of the question.

As for rubber tracks. They are available and advertised for a long time now. Maybe there is a reason why nobody is using them on combat vehicles so far...

It is not as if engine maintenace is the biggest part of tank maintenance. If the engine is broken during combat you just exchange the whole powerpack which is possible within 20min.

For sure a smaller vehicle usually needs less maintenance but the advantages are not going to be that big like you make them.

BTW, there is no need to shout or getting rude just because somebody has a different opinion than you... :rolleyes:

OIF tank crews had plenty of time to change crews if they were available. The idea is you spend 12-24 hours in the tank and then exchange. Its not exchanges every 2-4 hours.

On the run to Bagdad? During the battle of Falluja? Not really. During small scale firefights for sure.

AGRA

December 14th, 2007, 11:03 PM

And you are now making the statement that it is perfected to a point that it will lock in and counter multiple KE projectiles all at once and give you a high success rate of countering them or are you thinking more in terms of ATGMs.

Quick Kill is about as similar to the Dzord APS as a Napoleni era smooth bore, muzzle loading cannon is to the M777. They are both active protection systems and that is where the similarity ends. Yes Quick Kill will defeat multiple KE projectiles all at once.

AGRA

December 14th, 2007, 11:19 PM

The problem is not the price of pre-series vehicles but that they don't fund them out of the FCS budget because of the ever increasing need of money of the FCS program.

FCS budget is for development. The US always approves funding in different stages…

It is fine to compare Excalibur with plain normal HEs fired from a PzH2000.
But maybe one should also consider the other ammo fired from a PzH2000 like SMArt or extended range.

SMART is a dedicated anti-tank weapon, of the type that the US actually developed a long time ago but never ordered into production. Also exnteded range base bleed or rocket assisted conventional shells may fly further but dispersion is so high at long ranges 100s of shells are needed to ensure destruction or suppression of a particular point target that 3 Excaliburs can achieve (because they have such low dispersion).

And it is not just range where a NLOS-C lacks. It is also rate of fire, onboard ammo and survivability in the face of counterfire.

Garbege. NLOS-C has a similar ROF to PzH2000 carriers 40 rounds and has far higher counterfire protection thanks to APS.

And still I say one cannot really count ammo as an example of individual performance.
Or do you think the US would deny it's export if, for example, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany would ask for it?

Sure but are they planning on acquiring it? Are they planning on using it as the basis of the unit of fire? No, no and no. So until they do its NLOS-C with Excal vs PzH2000 with HE-BB. Even Australia that is looking at buying both PzH2000 and Excal only has an onboard unit of fire load of Excals per PzH2000 of 3 per vehicle, not 30 or 60.

Ok, than we wait till 2013 if this program goes well.
Are all the sensors required for it going to survive an artillery barrage?

Well is the Puma going to be in servie before 2013? Its about the soonest date for any new vehile. As to surviving battle damage the ANS sensors will be the same as any other tank sensor, be it conventional periscope based vision blocks or the rear view camera on the Leopard 2A5. IN many ways modern camera technology makes such sensor systems more resilient (smaller), cheaper and easier to replace than legacy vision blocks.

At least Iron Fist as well as ADS say that they also perform against KE threats.
And why should the explosion of Quick Kill be better suited for defeating a KE than any other of the new APS?

Because Quick Kill is a top attack EFP. Its just like playing a game of billiards. The EFP slug from Quick Kill hits the incoming KE penetrator from above deflecting it into the ground. APS effectors like the shotgun blast of Trophy or the Claymore area fragment blast of Dzord will have little effect on a KE penetrator.

I've seen a test video of Quick Kill. Well away is not what In would call it...

Through seething teeth: That’s because that video was of the minimum range test to show it could defeat a RPG launched at point blank range! The very nature of the HK device, vertical launch and rocket powered enables it to engage as far out as the detection and tracking system can determine a threat.

Distiller

December 15th, 2007, 02:13 AM

About that 3-crew vs 2-crew and automation potential: I guess more realistic than 2-crew is 0-crew. An autonomous tank. Managed by a human crew in a command-IFV. But as long as you put humans in a tank, there is no way to drop to a 2-crew arrangement. And for the FCS - let's wait and see.

Waylander

December 15th, 2007, 09:05 AM

SMART is a dedicated anti-tank weapon, of the type that the US actually developed a long time ago but never ordered into production. Also exnteded range base bleed or rocket assisted conventional shells may fly further but dispersion is so high at long ranges 100s of shells are needed to ensure destruction or suppression of a particular point target that 3 Excaliburs can achieve (because they have such low dispersion).

CEP for PzH2000 with HE-BB is 40m IIRC vs 10m of Excalibur. For sure Excalibur is better when it comes to 1 shot precision fire.
The thing is that this is just one part of fire missions and not even a really big one.

Garbege. NLOS-C has a similar ROF to PzH2000 carriers 40 rounds and has far higher counterfire protection thanks to APS.

PzH2000 carries 60 rounds and has a higher rate of fire (2 rounds more than NLOS-C per minute).

PzH2000 features better armor (against shrapnel) as well as ERA against top attack. As for a fire mission. Does NLOS-C beats the 30sec of a PzH2000?

Sure but are they planning on acquiring it? Are they planning on using it as the basis of the unit of fire? No, no and no. So until they do its NLOS-C with Excal vs PzH2000 with HE-BB. Even Australia that is looking at buying both PzH2000 and Excal only has an onboard unit of fire load of Excals per PzH2000 of 3 per vehicle, not 30 or 60.

First you deny the possibilty of PzH2000 users having the ability to aquire Excalibur if needed, than you give Australia as an example of a country which may have both.
The next thing is that you admit that there isn't a need for many Excalibur rounds on a vehicle and on the other hand you try to make NLOS-C the superior platform because of Excalibur.
Doesn't sound right...

Well is the Puma going to be in servie before 2013? Its about the soonest date for any new vehile. As to surviving battle damage the ANS sensors will be the same as any other tank sensor, be it conventional periscope based vision blocks or the rear view camera on the Leopard 2A5. IN many ways modern camera technology makes such sensor systems more resilient (smaller), cheaper and easier to replace than legacy vision blocks.

Jup, it should (If there are no further delays) enter service in 2010.
And a driver can still drive with one or two vision blocks being destroyed. Even totally blind as long as there is at least one crewmember seeing enough to guide him.
And easier to replace? I take the broken vision block and put the new one in in under a minute. Under armor protection.

As you said loosing your cameras and sensors is as easy as loosing current vision systems.
And that's exactly why relying on them could give you some headache.

A current tank with its FCS down, GPS and TC periscope broken as well as some lost vision blocks and maybe one lost crewmember is still able to fight with reasonable success.
Is a FCS vehicle also able to do this?

Because Quick Kill is a top attack EFP. Its just like playing a game of billiards. The EFP slug from Quick Kill hits the incoming KE penetrator from above deflecting it into the ground. APS effectors like the shotgun blast of Trophy or the Claymore area fragment blast of Dzord will have little effect on a KE penetrator.

I am not fully sure about Iron Fist but at least ADS and AWiSS are also using directed charges and not shotgun/claymore like systems.

Through seething teeth: That’s because that video was of the minimum range test to show it could defeat a RPG launched at point blank range! The very nature of the HK device, vertical launch and rocket powered enables it to engage as far out as the detection and tracking system can determine a threat.

Thanks for the explanation. As I said before there is no need to get angry. I do not intend to provoke or offend you and so far I enjoy this discussion.

So how far away is it going to be able to intercept a modern fast KE (With more than 1700m/s)?
Should be further away than an ATGM due to the higher speed.
If it is far enough I am surely impressed.

Vindex

December 15th, 2007, 04:08 PM

It is fine to compare Excalibur with plain normal HEs fired from a PzH2000.
But maybe one should also consider the other ammo fired from a PzH2000 like SMArt or extended range.

And it is not just range where a NLOS-C lacks. It is also rate of fire, onboard ammo and survivability in the face of counterfire.

And still I say one cannot really count ammo as an example of individual performance.
Or do you think the US would deny it's export if, for example, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany would ask for it?

I think one can hardly underestimate the advantage provided the longer barrel of the PZH and it's kind. Exalibur's block I ought to achieve roughly 40km out of an 39cal barrel while it gets at least 50km out of an 52cal one. If we assume a firing field of 120% this means that the longer barrel covers with the same degree of accuracy a roughly 950 km^2 larger area. Or 2616 km^2 vs 1 674 km^2 - this a huge gap in performance. If the wole area around the piece of artillery has to be considered, quite likely in an mission like Afghanistan than the PZH can cover a staggering 7 850 km^2 of ground.

Given the fluid and spreadout nature of nature of modern warfare it means that ambushed units who might get instant artillery support by an PZH can not expect the same when their army is supported by th NLOS-C. The FCS pays thus a heavy price for being light and with a smaller logistic footprint.

What the US-Army lacks is IMHO a truck-mounted long artillery piece like the Ceasar, the Atmos or - better - the Archer. While not as well protected as the NLOS-C the first two cost far less and are even equally light and easy to maintain but come with longer range...

BTW hello to all
Vindex

AGRA

December 15th, 2007, 05:51 PM

CEP for PzH2000 with HE-BB is 40m IIRC vs 10m of Excalibur. For sure Excalibur is better when it comes to 1 shot precision fire.
The thing is that this is just one part of fire missions and not even a really big one.

40m CEP for 155mm HE-BB is only at close ranges (~10km) at maximum range (~40km) it is around 250m. Though CEP is not good measure for conventional artillery rounds as the dispersion pattern is not circular but oval with different extremes in dispersion for range and bearing. Excalibur thanks to its GPS guidance maintains a CEP of uner 10m from minimum to maximum range. It also has other advantages like very small angle of fall for near vertical approach to the target maximizing its splinter effect.

High accuracy is not just better for one shot precision fire. At a range of 40km a NLOS-C unit with its L38 barrel firing Exaliburs will be able to saturate any frontage required instantaneously with a single mission. A PzH2000 unit with HE-BB will have to fire multiple missions to ensure target saturation and with a frontage of at least fire mission regiment thanks to dispersion. This means much longer time to achieve a pattern, which means less effect as the enemy can still maneuver through the fire zone, many more rounds fired and with only an option of firing a very large frontage not the smaller frontage required by the target (meaning higher chance of collateral damage).

First you deny the possibilty of PzH2000 users having the ability to aquire Excalibur if needed, than you give Australia as an example of a country which may have both.
The next thing is that you admit that there isn't a need for many Excalibur rounds on a vehicle and on the other hand you try to make NLOS-C the superior platform because of Excalibur.
Doesn't sound right...

I never denied that PzH2000 could have Excalibur just sated that none of its users are planning on using it in the same way the Americans are with NLOS-C. Maybe defencetalk.com is the domain of fantasists but I insist on framing any discussions here in reality. As for Australia’s example note that we are planning on only equipping each SPH, be it PzH2000 or K9, with only three rounds of Excalibur per onboard unit of fire. Where it will be used as a single shot precision munition not as the standard artillery round. This may not seem like much of a difference to people without any artillery experience but it is a huge gap.

And a driver can still drive with one or two vision blocks being destroyed. Even totally blind as long as there is at least one crewmember seeing enough to guide him.
And easier to replace? I take the broken vision block and put the new one in in under a minute. Under armor protection.

So can FCS which has six forward facing vision blocks and behind each are two operators each able to drive the tank. Of course neither needs to drive it because the ANS will drive them. Its sensors are even smaller apertures than the vision blocks, redundant and very hard to knock out.

A current tank with its FCS down, GPS and TC periscope broken as well as some lost vision blocks and maybe one lost crewmember is still able to fight with reasonable success.
Is a FCS vehicle also able to do this?

No less than the Puma IFV. By using a remote turret the FCS MGVs do take on the risk of not having a manual back up system to turret FCS loss. But this loss is worth it for the various advantages gained.

I am not fully sure about Iron Fist but at least ADS and AWiSS are also using directed charges and not shotgun/claymore like systems.

Sure but are still at a major disadvantage compared to Quick Kill as they relay on head to head attacks on the incoming threat. Head to head against a KE penetrator is a nightmare scenario as you’re not going to do much but scratch it unless you can summon up a lot of kinetic energy in your hard kill (HK) device, which is highly unlikely. Quick Kill because of its vertical launch attacks from above so has the advantage of Newtonian physics on its side!

[/QUOTE]So how far away is it going to be able to intercept a modern fast KE (With more than 1700m/s)?
Should be further away than an ATGM due to the higher speed.
If it is far enough I am surely impressed.[/QUOTE]

The modern western HK APS systems use phased array radars supported by FCS computers to detect and track the incoming warhead. The only limit on the range that incomings can be detected and tracked is how powerful the radars are. Radars are available that could detect and track any incoming from its launch (4-8km). The time required to plot the course of the incoming, calculate an intercept solution and fire the HK device is almost instantaneous. Now if Quick Kill can defeat an RPG-7 fired at point blank range it can complete the countermeasure cycle in under 1/10th of a second. As for the maximum engagement range of Quick Kill APS, it doesn’t have to be that far away from the vehicle to achieve countermeasure of an APFSDS/LOSAT threat. 10-20m should be more than enough.

AGRA

December 15th, 2007, 06:05 PM

I think one can hardly underestimate the advantage provided the longer barrel of the PZH and it's kind. Exalibur's block I ought to achieve roughly 40km out of an 39cal barrel while it gets at least 50km out of an 52cal one. If we assume a firing field of 120% this means that the longer barrel covers with the same degree of accuracy a roughly 950 km^2 larger area. Or 2616 km^2 vs 1 674 km^2 - this a huge gap in performance. If the wole area around the piece of artillery has to be considered, quite likely in an mission like Afghanistan than the PZH can cover a staggering 7 850 km^2 of ground.

Except the PzH2000s don’t have the Block II Excaliburs to do that, Block I Excalibur which is in service does not have the range capacity you quote. Dutch PzH2000s are firing 3 round MRSI missions in the Ghan out to around 20km maximum range. To cover wider areas they simply drive their “Green Monsters” out further. Anyone crazy enough to challenge their maneuver will get a couple of direct fire 155s for their troubles… They are very, very effective even limited to 1,256 km2 (all Afghan artillery work is to a full 6400 mils…)

Ideally the US Field Artillery would be introducing the M2001 Crusader into service now with L56 barrel… But NLOS-C even with its L38 barrel will still be more capable than other SP155s thanks to its use of more capable munitions.

Given the fluid and spreadout nature of nature of modern warfare it means that ambushed units who might get instant artillery support by an PZH can not expect the same when their army is supported by th NLOS-C. The FCS pays thus a heavy price for being light and with a smaller logistic footprint.

If so they deserve it. Artillery is not some static, limited beast no matter what range your gun system is, be it 10km range L5 pack howitzers or 150km range AGS DD(X) you move them to be able to support your combat forces. If they leave the cover of artillery fire then they can get overrun for being so stupid.

What the US-Army lacks is IMHO a truck-mounted long artillery piece like the Ceasar, the Atmos or - better - the Archer. While not as well protected as the NLOS-C the first two cost far less and are even equally light and easy to maintain but come with longer range...

Except for when the enemy is shooting back at you. That’s when you pay for your gun-on-a-truck cost cutting… Also the NLOS-c only needs a crew of two, the Caesar types need crews of 6-7. As for easy to maintain, well that’s debatable for the vehicle system, the FCS MGV hybrid, band track vehicle will be very easy to maintain even compared to a 10 tonne truck.

Vindex

January 10th, 2008, 06:27 AM

Ideally the US Field Artillery would be introducing the M2001 Crusader into service now with L56 barrel… But NLOS-C even with its L38 barrel will still be more capable than other SP155s thanks to its use of more capable munitions.

Excalibur seems to be right now the best blend of range and consistent accuracy, and has made perhaps greater strides than similar projects. Guided artillery munitions are a great challange but one which has been already tackled by other countries. Rheinmetall was able to overcome many of the fundamental problems of such a projectile by developing the SMart which has of course a different aim to fit NATO's purpose back than.

Still I'm convinced that this package ( NLOS-C and Excalibur) will loose a great deal of terrain and will be overtaken by other combinations.

If so they deserve it. Artillery is not some static, limited beast no matter what range your gun system is, be it 10km range L5 pack howitzers or 150km range AGS DD(X) you move them to be able to support your combat forces. If they leave the cover of artillery fire then they can get overrun for being so stupid.

Yes, stupid the may well be. But stupidity has a larger margin of safety when the arm of the artillery reaches longer.

Except for when the enemy is shooting back at you. That’s when you pay for your gun-on-a-truck cost cutting… Also the NLOS-c only needs a crew of two, the Caesar types need crews of 6-7. As for easy to maintain, well that’s debatable for the vehicle system, the FCS MGV hybrid, band track vehicle will be very easy to maintain even compared to a 10 tonne truck.

Of course a simple gun-on-a-truck is outmatched when the enemy can detect your artillery and shoot back in earnest. I personally like them because there are lot of places and bridges in the world where their light weight allows them to go. Their carrier can be chosen to fit the truck mainstay of a force. It is currently a good deal lighter than the NLOS-C (16.1t/18.5t) vs (22t-24/?t).
They are perfectly suited to deal with insurgents and smaller operation and to give strong artillery support after the enemies main abilities of hitting back have been crippled.

In the end we will see how good the NLOS-C really becomes.

Amarion

January 10th, 2008, 02:39 PM

HYPOTHETICALLY would it be possible to lighten and reduce the dimensions of the Abrams or any modern MBT, maybe give it around 3 crew (Gunner, Commander/Loader, Driver) With a 105mm gun plus the standard .50 and 7.62mm machine guns.

Would this be an effective medium/light tank? Could it be used for infantry support and indeed a converted APC variant.

Any comments...

All im doing is looking into this and looking at what we have here. lobbie111 seems to have a good idea about the Abrams. For now im just looking and later ill be more active here

Amarion

noseeum

January 12th, 2008, 09:41 PM

There is some overlap between the gunner, navigator and driver. The driver navigates in close range while the Navigator makes long range navigation etc. If you make the job significantly easier for the driver and gunner then they can take over more navigation functions to the point where the navigator could be eliminated without a noticeable decrease in capability. That slight decrease would be well worth the weight reduction.

That "slight decrease in capability" is not worth the weight reduction at all. That "slight decrease in capability" makes the crew very dead.

I digress. I thought the idea was to take an existing design and shrink it down? Maybe if you had some little guys to put in there. Otherwise, I don't think it's really feasible, primarily due to manufacturing process.

lobbie111

January 15th, 2008, 02:32 AM

I meant a scaled down Abrams about the size of say an M113 or CV90 probably with adjustable armour levels like on the Puma IFV on top of the original Abrams armour which was scaled down to about say 30mm frontal and 14.5mm side and rear chobham armour capability. In regards to the cannon I was thinking of a bofors type setup where a clip of say five shells can be loaded by the gunner of commander (even a mix of different shells) and then fired, keeping the same capability of a three man crew

Waylander

January 15th, 2008, 09:07 AM

Ahem, if you want a tank with 30mm frontal protection and 14,5mm side protection and with roughly the size of a CV90 I would highly recommend the CV90120 to you... ;) :D

I thought you want something smaller which is at least as good protected as an Abrams.

Vindex

January 15th, 2008, 01:04 PM

Actually I think that the CV120 is a brilliant fire support vehicle - it just isn't a proper tank. But for almost all uses it shall suffice for expeditionary warfare. A modern, working APS togheter with all the other active and passive protection suites would greatly improve its survilability against a good part of the thread spectrum. Especially important seems to me the additon of a source-of-fire detection system (acoustic or/and optical) coupled with a remote controlled .50 weapon station.

However the nowadays critical protection against mines or IEDs with or without EFPs was clearly not one of the most important design factors...

Waylander

January 16th, 2008, 02:03 AM

lobbie111

January 16th, 2008, 06:22 AM

I thought you want something smaller which is at least as good protected as an Abrams.

In my last post I specified that it should have modifiable Armour levels like the Puma IFV. But instead of having three levels just have an A and a B (A being the standard level of protection) and (B being MBT level of protection). It was more of a measure for training and getting away quickly.

Vindex

January 16th, 2008, 06:50 AM

The problem I have with the CV90120 is that one still needs a C-17 to carry it around.
In the end it is not much easier to deploy by air or sea than a normal MBT.

It only gives you a vehicle with less logistical footprint if you are already operate other vehicles on CV90 chassis and it is cheaper to obtain than a modern full size MBT.

While I fully agree with the first part which presents a possible severe limitation of its strategical and to some degree tactical mobility I disagree partly with the second part.

The logistical footprint isn't just smaller when you already operate the CV90 chassis, although it would of course be very desiderable. As I pointed out, fuel is the biggest burden for the supply system and the CV90 needs far less than a MBT, as it is much lighter and can be propelled by a engine with almost a third (~400kw)of the power needed for a MBT (~1100kw). To roughly break the fuel consumption down I would need to take a closer look.

So whenever a "CV" is able to fullfill the required tasks far away from home and has to operate with a high price tag on the supply the maxim is "as light as possible and as heavy as necessary". The difficulty is as always in striking the right balance between many conflicting factors...

P.S: Waylander could you confirm if this results are sound. They ought to be from the Swedish tank trials.

Then the Swedish were testing MBTs to see which they would choose, here's some range & performance data from their tests:

The Leclerc traveled 3,000 km with total fuel consumption of 41,400 litres.

The M1A2 traveled 3,820 km with total fuel consumption of 56,488 litres.

The Leopard 2 traveled 3,730 km with total fuel consumption of 26,874 liters.

Summing up the performance requirements, the final scores of the 3 tanks:

Leopard 90%

Abrams 86%

Leclerc 63%

Waylander

January 16th, 2008, 09:48 AM

Yeah, the logistical footprint of the platform is also smaller but IMHO it doesn't justifies to replace your current MBT platforms with it or to add it to your forces besides normal MBTs if you don't operate CV90s already.
At least not for a arguably rich western army.

If one wants to get lighter and for example wants to replace whored down T-72M1s or Leopard 1s than the CV90 is a good choice but if someone already operates a modern MBT but no CV90 the advantages of the CV90120 are not enough to justify a procurement in my eyes.

-----

I have seen these figures before and at least for the Leo II and the Abrams they sound right but the Leclerc wasn't as mature back then as it is now and it would do better now than in the past.
IIRC this can also be seen when one looks at the Greek or Turkish tank trials but I am not sure. I have to do some diggin. :)

eckherl

January 16th, 2008, 11:37 AM

Vindex

January 16th, 2008, 11:56 AM

If one wants to get lighter and for example wants to replace whored down T-72M1s or Leopard 1s than the CV90 is a good choice but if someone already operates a modern MBT but no CV90 the advantages of the CV90120 are not enough to justify a procurement in my eyes.

I guess it really depends on the political agenda of a state and its resulting strategical needs. If expeditionary warfare is high on it than it might be a very good addition to the CV90 fleet. But IMHO an IFV of the same family with a relatively large cannon 30-40mm and the ability to fire ATGM will do a very good job instead. So in the end it is a nice bonus with good uses, but an expensive one.

---------------------------

I had a hard time to believe that the M1A2 is such a big fuel hog. If this is true than somebody's bloody mistake is costing the US forces billions $ and human lifes. This means that the M1A2 needs a three times (the supply trucks need also fuel, far higher resupply frequency) bigger tanker fleet than the Leo II to support it with all the material and human costs and risks attached to it. With this in mind the Leo II outclasses the M1A2 for serious warfighting in a difficult to supply region by a huge margin.

Unbelievable blundering :shudder

P.S: Does the Australian version run on a diesel engine?

Waylander

January 16th, 2008, 12:06 PM

Nope, they also run on the turbine.

And while an army like the US one is able to support such a turbine it is still a burden.
I seriously question the ability of other Abrams users (Except Australia) to fully support their Abrams fleet in a high intensity operation.

Today the advantages of a turbine doesn't justify it if they ever did.
In the end the MTU for the Leo was also available back then. And the only advantage of a turbine is IMHO the acceleration. And this advantage is not that big when compared to a multi-fuel MTU diesel with the same hp and I doubt that it is a serious advantage during real operations.

eckherl

January 16th, 2008, 12:19 PM

I guess it really depends on the political agenda of a state and its resulting strategical needs. If expeditionary warfare is high on it than it might be a very good addition to the CV90 fleet. But IMHO an IFV of the same family with a relatively large cannon 30-40mm and the ability to fire ATGM will do a very good job instead. So in the end it is a nice bonus with good uses, but an expensive one.

---------------------------

I had a hard time to believe that the M1A2 is such a big fuel hog. If this is true than somebody's bloody mistake is costing the US forces billions $ and human lifes. This means that the M1A2 needs a three times (the supply trucks need also fuel, far higher resupply frequency) bigger tanker fleet than the Leo II to support it with all the material and human costs and risks attached to it. With this in mind the Leo II outclasses the M1A2 for serious warfighting in a difficult to supply region by a huge margin.

Unbelievable blundering :shudder

P.S: Does the Australian version run on a diesel engine?

It takes over five gallons of fuel just to get it started, also I have over 10 years of active military time on M1 series tanks and we never used any other type of fuel except diesel, and I would be surprised if the Aussies arent.
M1 series turbines will run off of three fuels:

JP series
Mogas
Diesel

Waylander

January 16th, 2008, 01:30 PM

eckherl

January 16th, 2008, 01:54 PM

IIRC the troops during OIF used JP8 for their tracks.

Multifuel is also an advantage of more or less modern diesel engines.
Is there any advantage if one uses JP8 with a turbine

We usually added some paraffin to the diesel during very cold winter days. Helps to reduce the problems diesel has with cold temperatures.

Supposingly running with JP8 makes the engine burn cleaner, also cold weather could make Diesel fuel gel up as you have already implied to. I have had diesel fuel gel up on me only once, and this happened on a M-60A3 in ROK.

I agree with you that there is no real benefits to stick with the turbine and we could replace it with a more dedicated diesel power pact.

lobbie111

January 17th, 2008, 03:01 AM

I had a hard time to believe that the M1A2 is such a big fuel hog. If this is true than somebody's bloody mistake is costing the US forces billions $ and human lifes. This means that the M1A2 needs a three times (the supply trucks need also fuel, far higher resupply frequency) bigger tanker fleet than the Leo II to support it with all the material and human costs and risks attached to it. With this in mind the Leo II outclasses the M1A2 for serious warfighting in a difficult to supply region by a huge margin.

You think the Abrams is bad never mind that, of the thousands of vehicles in US service i refer you mostly to the HMMWV which consumes fuel like a freakin' jet engine and then they add 2.5 tonnes of weight in Iraq giving it the fuel efficiency of a coal power station (even less than a jet engine). How many vehicles in US service? Plus all i've heard are bad things about all American car efficiency do you think a 70 tonne MBT would do any better?

Why would you use MBT's in a limited supply war? maybe light to medium assets with anti Armour capability.

Waylander

January 17th, 2008, 05:25 AM

Because sometimes in war your supply might flow as smoothly and uncontested like during something like Desert Storm. ;)

Just let the enemy get some hits onto your nearest pipeline and a lucky shot at one or two fuel convoys and you end up in trouble really fast.

Driving a tank is maybe the most fuel inefficient style of driving ever. Most of the time standing somewhere with a running engine, interrupted by small sprints and some serious cross country rides followed again by a halt with running engine.
Because of that real fuel consume and what one reads in tech sheets often differs a lot.

lobbie111

January 17th, 2008, 05:58 AM

Do you need the engine running to be able to traverse and fire the gun?

Waylander

January 17th, 2008, 06:50 AM

eckherl

January 17th, 2008, 07:15 AM

No, the turret can run on batteries or also on an APU (If one is lucky) to save battery power.
It is not very nice to be caught by the enemy with empty batteries.

Nevertheless if you are not on guard duty in the rear one runs the engine because one wants to be able to move fast if necessary.
And usually tanks also tend to hop from one battle position to the next, especially when fighting a mobile defense or delaying action.

Also in the offense leapfrogs are common. Not to talk of recce, counter-recce, avoiding artillery,...

All this is not comparable to a normal roadmarch and costs much more fuel so usually a tank tends to burn much more fule than what one reads in a fact sheet.

BTW, if one starts the engine of the Leopard II it generates voltage peaks which make the turret crash. Then the turret needs some seconds to reboot. Not got when enemy forces are approaching... ;)

The turrets crash on occasion when starting the LEO 2, thats interesting, does the LEO2A5/6 still have this problem, I would think that they could build a better surge protection system for the electronics.

Leo 2 series turrets and gun can be moved manually and fired also in a degraded mode correct.

I took the Diesel fuel question to the Aussie thread inregards to their M1s and AGR stated that they are burning diesel, also confirmed that they are burning it in Iraq also.

Waylander

January 17th, 2008, 07:25 AM

I have to admit that I am not 100% sure if they solved this problem from A5 upwards.
I'm going to do some research.

Jup, there are three modes for the turret.

1. Turm aus - which means old style handwheels. There is also a firing button on the wheels and if even that fails another big red buzzer right next to the gun for manually igniting the round.

2. Beobachten - No muscles needed, but stabilization is off.

3. STAB ein - fully battle ready with all bells and whistles ringing.

In the end there can be some very interesting, and scary..., malfunctions if your turret is broken. I remember some wild caroussel rides...

lobbie111

January 17th, 2008, 07:25 AM

that JP8 stuff might be better but its got the worst efficiency of any fuel, its jet fuel its designed to be bruned fast not like deisel which has a slow burn time.

I also thought of this last night, could the M1 act as a 120mm smoothbore mortar? My idea would be to put a MSTAR radar on board every tank (if possible) and then fire strix guided 120mm mortar round out of the main barrel. Would it be possible or can't the abrams reach enough gun elevation to do it. This would be a great feature on Any new modern armoured vehicle. Tanks could be backed up by their own mortar rounds.

Waylander

January 17th, 2008, 07:31 AM

Why should one waste a 7 million bucks tank in the mortar role if one can also use a cheap APC with a 120mm in the back and a specialised mortar crew?

And you are right the elevation is much too small.

Battlefield surveillance is better left to the specialists who have the time and manpower to use an assets like MSTAR.

For sure you could put a MSTAR onto a tank but this is not really going to enhance the capabilities of a tank.

lobbie111

January 17th, 2008, 07:38 AM

Battlefield surveillance is better left to the specialists who have the time and manpower to use an assets like MSTAR.

For sure you could put a MSTAR onto a tank but this is not really going to enhance the capabilities of a tank.

I was referring to more of an automated version of it, be it to make it more like a computer game for the drivers where enemies appear in 30km wide circles of coverage pointing out infantry, tanks etc. on a moving map display or helmet mounted display. You probably only need to have one per squad/section/platoon (I don't know what you call them) of tanks really. like a moving map display.

In regards to the STRIX I was more referring to range you can get 8km out of a STRIX but only what 2-3km out of an M1. This would be good to get rid of annoying AT troops before they pop up behind a hill.

Waylander

January 17th, 2008, 07:50 AM

I am not sure if I get it.
Do you say one gets only 2-3km out of a 120mm smoothbore tank gun when using normal ammo?
One can achieve a lot more out of a tank gun but one will hardly hit anything That's the reason why there are not that many life fire ranges out there which regularly allow for live fire exercises with anything else than training ammo (Which is specially restricted in range).
IIRC there have been special indirect fire procedures for tanks when our fathers and grandfathers rode the track but this technic has gone since some time.

And battlefield surveillance is not working this way. ;)
This is a little bit more difficult and requires specialists.

swerve

January 17th, 2008, 08:27 AM

...
Why would you use MBT's in a limited supply war? maybe light to medium assets with anti Armour capability.

Because unless you have the degree of overmatch the USA is accustomed to, all wars are potentially limited supply. Unless you have overwhelming strength, & can afford to fight in half-hearted mode, you will try to use all the forces that you can, & as Waylander said, the enemy (wit occasional exceptions, such as Saddam Hussein in 1990-91) will attempt to disrupt your supply lines if he has the power.

Vindex

January 17th, 2008, 03:54 PM

Basically it boils down to this: As long as they suffice the light's small footprint is great. A war on the cheap is always great. The problem is that if this light forces meet something which outclasses them, the supply footprint grows slightly bigger as materials and corpses pile up... :(

lobbie111

January 18th, 2008, 07:08 AM

One can achieve a lot more out of a tank gun but one will hardly hit anything

That's what I was getting at with the added range and guidance of the STRIX munitions the effectiveness of a tank will increase and a tank can travel further and safer knowing that its threats have been eliminated.

Basically it boils down to this: As long as they suffice the light's small footprint is great. A war on the cheap is always great. The problem is that if this light forces meet something which outclasses them, the supply footprint grows slightly bigger as materials and corpses pile up...

Thats the good thing about lighter forces they can outmaneuver heavy forces and call on things like air support to deal with heavier threats.

Waylander

January 18th, 2008, 07:12 AM

In maneuver warfare there is not that much which can outmaneuver a heavy brigade combat team if one doesn't want to stay on roads (Which should be avoided except for road marches to the general area of operations).

And it is not as if a heavy unit can't call in air support... ;)

lobbie111

January 18th, 2008, 07:33 AM

I think we are debating and not including environmental factors, dense areas (urban, jungle etc.) infantry or lighter forces reign deserts etc. heavier forces reign

Waylander

January 18th, 2008, 07:42 AM

thought we are talking about mechanized maneuver warfare and not about some specialized light infantry warfare.

Aussie Digger

January 18th, 2008, 08:08 AM

That's what I was getting at with the added range and guidance of the STRIX munitions the effectiveness of a tank will increase and a tank can travel further and safer knowing that its threats have been eliminated.

Thats the good thing about lighter forces they can outmaneuver heavy forces and call on things like air support to deal with heavier threats.

It's pretty hard for light infantry to out-manoeuvre an armoured or motorised unit... Even with helo support.

6RAR conducted a trial a few years back, where it self-deployed to Quilpie from Brisbane (about 954ks)

Suffice to say, the 6RAR battlegroup with it's infantry mobility vehicles were able to deploy quicker than 6RAR could have with ADF's higher level transport assets combined together...

eckherl

January 18th, 2008, 12:07 PM

It's pretty hard for light infantry to out-manoeuvre an armoured or motorised unit... Even with helo support.

6RAR conducted a trial a few years back, where it self-deployed to Quilpie from Brisbane (about 954ks)

Suffice to say, the 6RAR battlegroup with it's infantry mobility vehicles were able to deploy quicker than 6RAR could have with ADF's higher level transport assets combined together...

Light infantry concept has been around now for quite some time, we tested out the 9th light infantry div at FT Lewis Washington, we hit them with a heavy mechanized combined arms brigade from FT Carson Co and chopped them to pieces within half a days worth of engagement contact, we were even asked to slow down our tanks.:D

Waylander

January 18th, 2008, 12:17 PM

:D

That is indeed fast.
Using light infantry to counter heavy forces within a terrain which allows mechanized maneuver warfare is going to get you killed really fast.
It might work to jump into some 3rd world country and smash some local troops but if the enemy is reasonable modern this is fast turning into a suicide mission.

I still favor the idea of having some medium units like the stryker brigades for expeditionary warfare with a medium threat and for counterinsurgency missions like in Iraq and some HBCTs for the serious work.
Sometimes people tend to forget that someone has to kick the door in before the assymetric warfare begins.

Light infantry should be reserved for specialized units (airborn, airmobile, mountain, etc.) and for quick reaction forces (plain normal light infantry like 10th mountain).

eckherl

January 18th, 2008, 12:35 PM

AGRA

January 18th, 2008, 06:07 PM

Yep - the heavy units will be around for quite some time yet, even the Canadians gave up the idea of using Stryker MGS systems instead of tanks.

Hang on... You were talking about light infantry vs heavy mechanised. Now you apply that to Stryker MGS in the same breath. Since when did light infantry have Stryker MGS on their ORBAT?

Heavy mechanised forces (M1/BFV) will remain in the US Army ORBAT for a while because they don't have the cash to replace them all with FCS.

Waylander

January 18th, 2008, 06:42 PM

No, we talked about light (infantry light 82nd or 10th), medium (like Stryker brigades) or heavy (like the usual HBCT).

I know that you are in love with the FCS idea and that you really love the idea of medium BCTs.

Nevertheless a Stryker brigade is going to suffer alot when it is under attack from a HBCT.
Not to talk of light infantry away from their preferred environment (heavy wood, mountains, etc...).

eckherl

January 18th, 2008, 07:27 PM

Hang on... You were talking about light infantry vs heavy mechanised. Now you apply that to Stryker MGS in the same breath. Since when did light infantry have Stryker MGS on their ORBAT?

Heavy mechanised forces (M1/BFV) will remain in the US Army ORBAT for a while because they don't have the cash to replace them all with FCS.

I was making reference to some of the reasoning of why Canada went to a heavier vehicle versus a lighter one.

And no, light infantry units have never worked with the Stryker MGS.

Yes FCS is very expensive, but they still need to conduct additional testing to help ensure that they will survive against a heavier size opponent and combat environment.

lobbie111

January 18th, 2008, 09:00 PM

Yeah I was actually thiknig of Australia when I posted, having somthing like 6RAR (with AT missiles) along with supporting ASLAV's, I think could probably keep ahead of heavy stuff until they deicide to fight. I think you are both thinking of a dug in war where there will be fixed positions (ie they occupy that village you must take that village). Having a stationary target is easy to move around but if the lighter forces can also move around even easier it will be harder to completly out manouver the light stuff.

I do not doubt the heavy stuff and its ability to outmanouvere light to medium assets but as I stated before it depends on a number of factors be they environmental, type/style of warfare, weather fixed or stationary assets.

Waylander

January 18th, 2008, 10:15 PM

I don't get why you think that medium forces (I'm thinking of something like a Stryker Brigade or Aussie troops with LAVs) are going to be able to stay ahead of heavy forces.
They are not more maneuverable when it comes to maneuver warfare. In fact they are less able to cope with the terrain.

Let's assume that both sides have a similar capable battlefield network and air support. The medium unit is going to be shredded by the heavy unit.

So in the end what do we have. Even the lighter parts of a HBCT (Brads) outgun enemy medium forces. The artillery if medium forces is going to break down under the counterfire abilities of a HBCT and they have no chance of countering a heavy assault onto their positions. Not even the US Army Striker Brigades with their sh**loads of Javelins.
Not to talk of their ability to perform offensive maneuvers against heavy forces. With what? ATGMs carried by crunchies and 105mm on MGS.

And naturally warfare IS about special points, routs, landmarks, etc.
One just doesn't have the luxury of driving around and hoping for a gap in the enemy defense.

lobbie111

January 18th, 2008, 10:29 PM

alright you win...I'm sure it is possible for a medium force to defeat a heavier force

Waylander

January 18th, 2008, 10:41 PM

It is alright if you think so.
But maybe you could elaborate why you think this is possible.
A medium force does not offer many advantages over a heavy force despite strategic mobility.

I have no problem with discussing this in a serious matter and I don't want to punish you in any way.
Just give some reasons why you think that a medium force has a good chance of hunting down a heavy force.

lobbie111

January 19th, 2008, 04:35 AM

Not hunting that is where you are wrong, I was thinking more of going to guerrilla style tactics ambushing forward elements and moving off within an TAOR.

Just like the NVA and Viet Cong did in the Vietnam war, the US sent in a two man patrol, they would never come back, so they sent in a few more say a four man patrol, they would never come back. and before you say that you would never leave a large group, the medium force can use mortars (with STRIX or the IMI cargo round) to split the heavier force up

Waylander

January 19th, 2008, 08:15 AM

No this is where you are wrong.
Breaking contact with the heavy forces once you entered combat is extremely difficult for the medium forces.

The only assets with which for example a Stryker brigade can set an ambush are it's dismounts with Javelins and it's Stryker MGS with 105mm guns.

For sure one can hope for some ambushes and side shots and one can try to harass the enemy with mortar fire.
But while a medium brigade is restricted to mortars and towed artillery a HBCT has support by modern SPHs and MLRS as well as mortars.
And these artillery assets are going to silence the fire support of the medium brigade within a short time with their counterfire.
And not only that but these support assets are also going to take their toll on the combat and rear formations of a medium unit.
Remember that while you advertise the advantages of something like STRIX you have to be aware that the HBCT can also use a wide array of modern 120mm mortar, 155mm artillery rounds and MLRS ammo. And it can do this with more and better assets.

And these dismounted Javelin teams amde mobile by a Stryker like platform and the Stryker MGS are just less capable of cross country rides especially when having to drive backwards which is normal if someone sets an ambush or fights a delaying attrition action.

The HBCT units are going to close the gap very fast once contact is established and while they have a huge superiority in firepower and can take a beating much better than a medium unit this advantage only gets bigger when they enter the infight.

All the time we assume that both sides have nearly the same amount of air support and are networked in the same way.
Apart from the US and some other many heavy units all over the world also field better tactical air defense systems which makes them less vulnerable to enemy air assets.

You are trying to compare the whole situation with platoon sized jungle operations of vietnam while this is not the point.
Comparing mechanized maneuver warfare with an example like you gave it is not even comparing apples and oranges.

And you should not forget that one only has so much terrain to give. Or how do you think one can hold a frontline or achieve successes in the offense?
In order to perform you mission one has to fight about a certain terrain and being restricted in your ability to trade terrain for time and cover is more common than the opposite.

eckherl

January 19th, 2008, 09:33 AM

On occassion it is okay to have a fluid defensive engagement with your opponent, but when it becomes a issue of constantly having to give up ground from becoming destroyed then that battle wil be over rather quickly. Medium vehicles due not have the armor nor ammunition for a sustained fight, at the current time. FCS as AGR points out does have some major advancements, but everything has to be in place and working properly if used against a sizable enemy. Even though the U.S has envisioned thid new concept the verdict is still out on how it will work against a well established sizable enemy force.

lobbie111

January 19th, 2008, 07:45 PM

what detection capabilites do modern heavy units have in terms of radar sensors etc.

One only needs to hide out of sight and wait for the rear units such as SPH's, MLRS and supply convoys are going to start walking across your kill zone. Along with an AT and AA capability like stingers or RBS70's you should have no trouble limiting a heavy brigades mobility for supplies but this is what you guys were saying earlier attacking the rear supplies will bring a mechanised unit to its knee's.

Waylander

January 20th, 2008, 01:41 PM

The recce assets of a heavy unit are at least as good as the ones from a light unit.
They are supported by their attached lighter recce ground forces (For example armored cavalry in the US or Panzeraufklärer in GermanyI).
Other recon assets like ground surveillance radars, UAVs, EW/radio guys are also attached and they get the usual support by their Division or Corps (Be it air recon, space birds, intel,...).

Additionaly the battallions also have their own assets. For example in Germany a platoon of light recon infantry made mobile by Wolf (Named Aufklärungs- und Verbindungszug/AVZ) is part of the 1st company.

And while a medium force has the advantage that they can easier give some of their light assets the role of light recon vehicles if needed the heavy force also has an advantage.
They can conduct real recce by force (Is this the right english word for it?).
And a unit like a Stryker Brigade is going to struggle when it tries to counter this.

Trying to catch the rear units is always a good idea (Besides the fact that a modern SPH is not really what I would call a defenseless victim) but actually doing it is not easier with a heavy unit that with a medium unit.
If a Stryker brigade looses their logistical tail it is as much in trouble as a HBCT.

eckherl

January 20th, 2008, 01:43 PM

Waylander

January 20th, 2008, 02:21 PM

Ah, thanks. :)

Less martialic than I would have expected. :D ;)

AGRA

January 20th, 2008, 06:54 PM

It is alright if you think so.
But maybe you could elaborate why you think this is possible.
A medium force does not offer many advantages over a heavy force despite strategic mobility.

Garbage, or spoken like someone with a very limited tactical viewpoint.

A medium, ie LAV/Stryker force, has a range of other advantages over a heavy, ie MBT/IFV, force. On strategic mobility I would say the medium force has no real advantage over a heavy force because the only way to really move ground force assets in any kind of strategic numbers is by shipping. Most RO/ROs don’t care if it’s a 60 tonne tank or a 20 tonne LAV…

However medium forces have significant advantages in using less fuel and being all-wheeled. This enables them to move significantly faster in higher tactical and operational manoeuvre. This enables medium force commanders at Army, Corps, Division and even Brigade levels to do a range of things heavy force commanders can’t do within the same timeframes.

Most importantly for the tactical battle they can concentrate force and do so in places where the heavy force is weakest. This will typically result in huge force on force number disparities in favour of the medium force and advantageous terrain positioning for the medium force.

Waylander

January 20th, 2008, 07:31 PM

Ah, here you go again.
Didn't we talk about that before?
I already waited for you to show up and bless me with your wisdom.

If you would have read what I wrote before you would have seen that I already stated that medium forces are more mobile when going by street.

And last time I checked a Stryker was way smaller than a MBT which makes a difference if one wants to save room on a ship.
Not to talk of deployments by air which is in fact something the users of medium forces are thinking about.

You are again talking of some lonely battlefield with a good road network which is not stuffed up by traffic jams and damaged by air attacks. Or were the flanks of units are not covered by other units.
This is not about two brigades with some support slugging it out in the desert where a Stryker Brigade can use their better mobility to literally dance around a heavy unit using good ground or streets.

I am talking about a medium unit having to take an objective or to defend a certain are of responsibility.
If a Stryker Brigade is able to nearly run unopposed around your positions than your frontline looks more like swiss cheese than like a real frontline.
One has to make a breakthrough in order to maneuver more free behind enemy lines.
Something along the lines of a Sovjet/Russian approach to open a hole with some mot.rifle regiments in order to send a tank regiment through it.

You can enlighten me how a Stryker Brigade is going to break through the terrain which is held by a HBCT. Performing an attack with Stryker MGSs and dismounted Javelin AT-teams followed by Stryker APCs while getting fire support by their towed artillery and integrated 120mm mortars.
This would end up in a massacre.

The defense looks better for a Stryker Brigade as naturally it offers more advantages even for lighter forces.
Still a HBCT can take the damage a Stryker Brigade is throwing at them AND can go on.

As Eckherl already said. If you always have to trade time for safety you have a problem.

I don't say that medium forces don't have their roles. I already mentioned them.
Be it better suited for medium to low intensitiy conflicts, better strategic mobility or as a fire brigade during a high intensity conflict.
Being a substitue for a HBCT in it's natural environment is defenitely not one of their roles.

lobbie111

January 21st, 2008, 02:26 AM

Waylander

January 21st, 2008, 09:51 AM

Were do I say that?
I can quote myself.
I don't say that medium forces don't have their roles. I already mentioned them.
Be it better suited for medium to low intensitiy conflicts, better strategic mobility or as a fire brigade during a high intensity conflict.

Maybe I should make something clear. I used the term fire brigade to say that one can use them to put a plug into holes in the frontlines. They are well suited for such a task due to their better on road mobility behind the frontlines. Now they have to slow down, or better stop the enemy forces, long enough for additional heavy forces to arrive or till a counterattack cuts of the enemy spearhead.

Take the example of the british and italians in North Africa in WW2, they gave up so much ground that they just couldnt go any further or risk their supply chain collapsing.

And you again take an extreme situation as a prove of your ideas.
The Brits retreated nearly 2000km in Africa.
And you take this as an option for most conventional wars? Just retreat 2000km in order not get destroyed?
This is roughly the distance from Berlin to Madrid and more than Berlin to Moscow...

And what do you mean with outrun? When trying to outrun a heavy unit while you are making an offensive move you have to break through their lines. But with the units available to you it is much more likely that you get a bloody nose at the first line of defense. And if the enemy retreat to the next fireposition the game starts new.

If you are in the defense you have a huge problem. You can decide to go for the streets and start a general retreat to save you units and avoid direct contact and leave behind just a few units for a delaying action.
Or you try to perform a mobile defense. The problem is before your wheeled assets have reached the next defensive positions while driving backwards the MBTs and IFVs close the gap between the two units.
And as I said nefore you are even much more outgunned when it comes to artillery support so say goodbye to your indirect fire support after the inital stages of an engagement because their are going to come under heavy counterfire.

Naturally the enemy is going to take more losses when conducting an offensive move against you. But he has the firepower and protection together with the mobility on the battlefield to break through your lines with significant forces giving you only the chance to fully retreat and give the enemy the objective he wants or to stay and die in your positions.
You can imagin what happens to your frontline if one of the medium units decides to push back in order to save the unit. That opens up a hole in the line big enough for whole divisions to push through.
Great for a cohesive defense.

I do not doubt that heavy units suffer earlier from supply problems when they try to catch a medium force which is retreating over a long distance. But how often do you have so much ground to give?

eckherl

January 21st, 2008, 10:12 AM

You are almost saying Waylander that the only use for Stryker or medium brigades to be effective is to provide fire support. I think you fail to see the fact that by the time you've caught up with a medium brigade you will need resupply, they may not be able to outmanouvere you but they can outrun you. Take the example of the british and italians in North Africa in WW2, they gave up so much ground that they just couldnt go any further or risk their supply chain collapsing. You might say that you can just resupply by air but with equal airforces on each side these transports will be blown out of the sky.

A medium force does not need to engage in direct combat to defeat a heavy force, by using small scale skirmishes and turning the terrain against a heavy brigade a medium force can win.

lobbie - think of what you just stated, if you cannot go head on with a heavy mechanized force and they constantly have you on the run or force you to fight delaying action style skirmishes then they are dictating that battle for you and you will run out of room to manuever, they will destroy you in pieces if needed, war is not just counted on how many casualties that you can inflict on your opponent, taking large chunks of real estate is also the name of the game. This type of thinking is really alarming at this current time, everyone seems to be under the impression that our future potential opponents have lost the technology edge and that they will attack us with big lumbering outdated weapons platforms and this is turning out to not be the case with some of the new designs that they are researching. Yes - we are working very hard with our FCS program with some really good designs about to be fielded, do some of these designs offer promise and potential yes, but we still have aways to go with it not counting the big dollar expenditures that it is going to take to bring in every system that is needed for our new concept in war fighting into play. :)

@AGR

You seem to have alot of knowledge in our FCS program, what realistic time frame do you see all ( everything ) weapons platforms and systems in place for this.

lobbie111

January 22nd, 2008, 08:03 AM

Aussie Digger

January 22nd, 2008, 08:55 AM

Your both right I admit, I have Australia in mind when writing my posts. Australia has bought the ASLAV because of its terrain, preffering mobility over heavy firepower. In Australia you have to invade where the defences arn't...the middle of knowhere perfect for faster and lighter medium manouvere forces. Heavy stuff will be slower and require more supplies.

Also in places like say Europe or anywhere else, cities can be choke points to hold a heavy force up, this will not have the same affect of giving up swaths of ground but if say you were the US (Heavy) invading mexico (Medium/Light), assuming you have equal airpower and supply ability like before. Using cities and towns as choke points holding the US up until they can no longer sustain the losses. Keep in mind you only have to keep a vehicle disabled not neccesarily destroy it to achieve this.

On a lighter note "We're surrounded? Good. That means we can attack in any direction then!"

With regards to the FCS does anyone know what sort of protection levels they will have? Will they be a medium type force agumented by Bradley's and Abrams being still heavy and the Stryker brigaes will form the lighter forces?

I think you misunderstand how Australia uses the ASLAV. It provides a recon and surveillance capability for higher level forces and is employed in this role for both our "medium" brigade (1 Brigade) and light forces in 7 Brigade, though of course they will do this for any deployed packages.

1 Brigade is a medium brigade because it is a mechanised infantry unit. Infantry are the primary fighting force, not armour, which has a supporting role, unlike NATO equivalent "armoured brigades".

ASLAV is certainly faster than M1A1 and M113 vehicles on roads, but it's off-road manoeuvrability is not as high as the tracked vehicles and do not provide the protection levels the tracked vehicles do, hence why M113's and future tracked vehicles will continue to equip Army's primary fighting units, as opposed to light wheeled vehicles...

lobbie111

January 22nd, 2008, 09:04 AM

I think you misunderstand how Australia uses the ASLAV. It provides a recon and surveillance capability for higher level forces and is employed in this role for both our "medium" brigade (1 Brigade) and light forces in 7 Brigade, though of course they will do this for any deployed packages.

1 Brigade is a medium brigade because it is a mechanised infantry unit. Infantry are the primary fighting force, not armour, which has a supporting role, unlike NATO equivalent "armoured brigades".

ASLAV is certainly faster than M1A1 and M113 vehicles on roads, but it's off-road maneuverability is not as high as the tracked vehicles and do not provide the protection levels the tracked vehicles do, hence why M113's and future tracked vehicles will continue to equip Army's primary fighting units, as opposed to light wheeled vehicles...

I understand what you are saying that they are not as well suited to cross country performance as tracked vehicles are but the terrain in the middle of Australia is desert not desert in the sense of the Middle eastern desert but mostly flat and dry level terrain no, this to me is as good for wheeled as well as tracks. (this is not from experience unfortunately having only been given a sneak peak from a light aircraft :()

I never said it was mechanized infantry, I think i may have gotten the US Stryker and the ASLAV confused with each other during my hasty posting sorry about that.

Waylander

January 22nd, 2008, 09:44 AM

@Lobbie
I always admitted that if the terrain allows it wheeled medium forces are faster, even cross country, than heavy forces.
And cities are defenitely the home of the infantry with heavier forces only acting in a limited supporting role. I also admitted that before. Medium units usually just have more dismounts available and this combination of vehicles and crunchies is more favourable for city fights.

I am not familiar with the terrain in some parts of Australia (We have enough Aussies here to tell everything somebody wants to know...:D ) and I can well think of them as flat and dry.
Maybe not a dry salt lake but flat and dry enough to allow wheeled vehicles to sustain high speed for longer time.

But how often do you have this ground together with the huge space of the Australian no mans land.
There are defenitely such parts in the world but they don't exist that often and they are also often enough not very important like parts of Mongolia for example.

And because of this I reacted a little bit harsh when AGRA again came with his opinion.
I have no problem with a discussion and I am perfectly able to change my mind if somebody discusses with me and I see that his arguments are strong.
But AGRA brought his examples before. And placing two units (one heavy and one medium) in the middle of nowhere, with surprisingly good ground for wheeled vehicles and with only the medium unit being highly networked and technical advanced is not a good example.
You just cannot say that medium units can use their advantages against heavy ones and are a substitute for them because it works in a lonely flat desert with unequal opponents.
It proves that Stryker Brigades are able to be shipped to some 3rd world chaos country and have enough punch to go against a local heavy unit.

But this is not how a serious big war looks like especially not in the advanced parts of the world.

I just don't like it when somebody acts seriously arrogant and talks down to me as if I have no clue whatsoever without even adressing the examples I give. Maybe it is because I am not a native speaker
So don't take my harsh tone as directed to you. Usually I am nice and calm here on DT. ;) :)

eckherl

January 22nd, 2008, 01:13 PM

Your both right I admit, I have Australia in mind when writing my posts. Australia has bought the ASLAV because of its terrain, preffering mobility over heavy firepower. In Australia you have to invade where the defences arn't...the middle of knowhere perfect for faster and lighter medium manouvere forces. Heavy stuff will be slower and require more supplies.

Also in places like say Europe or anywhere else, cities can be choke points to hold a heavy force up, this will not have the same affect of giving up swaths of ground but if say you were the US (Heavy) invading mexico (Medium/Light), assuming you have equal airpower and supply ability like before. Using cities and towns as choke points holding the US up until they can no longer sustain the losses. Keep in mind you only have to keep a vehicle disabled not neccesarily destroy it to achieve this.

On a lighter note "We're surrounded? Good. That means we can attack in any direction then!"

With regards to the FCS does anyone know what sort of protection levels they will have? Will they be a medium type force agumented by Bradley's and Abrams being still heavy and the Stryker brigaes will form the lighter forces?

Fighting a large scale conflict and using cities as choke points will not slow down your opponent, he will most likely bypass you with the majority of his fighting force and mop you up after they have achieved their objectives, remember speed is the name of the game even for heavy size units. Russians are very good at this, if they come up against a sizable force of resistance then they will bypass you and pound the living snot out of you with artillery and air assets until they come for you at a later time.

FCS is supposed to have good protection systems in place, with hard kill and soft kill systems, intel and good armor with lethal firepower, will they use M1s and Bradley fighting vehicles augmented with FCS weapons platforms remains to be seen, we just may end up with 3 different fighting forces in the U.S, Heavy, Medium and light, we just need to see if the capabilities offered with the FCS program live up to our expectations.

AGRA

January 22nd, 2008, 07:20 PM

Ah, here you go again.
Didn't we talk about that before?
I already waited for you to show up and bless me with your wisdom.

Clearly you are talking above your pay grade, if you had ever served in a unit or formation HQ you would know it’s not all as simple as you make out. Where do you think all that fuel come from to keep your heavy force mobile? How does a tank brigade get into battle? Who organises the road routes and tank transporters. Warfare is all about logistics and all about higher level manoeuvre. The final tactical battle may get all the press but usually by then the result has already been decided.

But don’t take my ‘wisdom’ for granted. What I am talking about here is backed up by EVERY SINGLE serious thinker about warfare and winner of battles and wars. Perhaps you should read some Guderian, you might have heard of him before.

But never let historical military reality get in the way of a good story that helps one sell bigger and more expensive tanks. Sure the Germans conquered France in 1940 with pipsqueak Panzer IIs, sure the Soviets did it back to the Germans with comparatively lightweight T-34s, the Israelis won with Shermans and AMX-13s vs Egyptian IS-3s, the South Africans with Ratels vs T-55s, India with PT-76s, etc, etc. But lets keep building bigger and heavier tanks.

It looks much better that way.