This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; What does "work together" mean? I hope you are not suggesting that it means moving at top DESIGN speed cross ...
What does "work together" mean? I hope you are not suggesting that it means moving at top DESIGN speed cross country!
They work together as approprite to the combination of factors like tactical situation, nature of mission, force composition, expected threat, available fuel and ammo, and not the least crew fatigue.
If you are going to tell me that the crucial constraint in IFV design is to match the force MBT for speed, I am going to be very disappointed
Jep, I tell you that.
It is one major factor. For sure you do not drive around at full speed but there are situations were you need the speed and it is not fun to have IFVs with you which slow you down for example during retreat under fire. I often enough saw this during maneuvers when working together with our Marders.
Reaching the same cross country performance like MBTs is important. And you cannot tell me that this is not important for Australian forces.
And it just puts back your ability to perform a combined arms battle if one of the participants is not able to go the speed of the others.
Quote:
Waylander...do German AFVs have a big sign saying Schießen Sie mich nur in der Stirnfläche (trans:Shoot me in frontal area only)Ability to avoid being shot at is firstly in the ability to destroy enemy first. Adding frontal armour may be great for tanks (but no assurance that will help), but for an IFV even doubling the frontal armour compared to side armour is still not enough against heavier ATGWs and tank guns. So why bother? What 'low tech' weapons do you mean? mines/IEDs are another issue altogether, and adding armour is not a solution because most attacks result in mobility disablement. The design has to be able to cope with 50% loss in mobility, BUT still allow crew to keep moving (not necessarily forward btw).
With low tech or light weapons I mean rounds up to 14,5mm and basic RPGs as well as artillery spalls and bomblets.
And what is the logic behind "We are not able to withstand ATGMs and tank guns so why should we bother about frontal armor?"?
Why should you than even armor an IFV?
A good frontal armor gives you a much better chance to be the winner of a direct duell against enemy IFVs. And frontal hits remain the highest possibility when fighting enemy forces.
It is right that shooting and hitting first is the best protection you can have but there are enough occasions where you come under fire without seeing the enemy first even with the best optics and equipment.
And I know that mine/IED protection is a combination of construction procedures but of which adding armor is part of. Uncoupled running gears, V shaped bottoms, special uncoupled seats, etc are the other ones.
And against big IEDs and AT-mines mobility kills are not your only problem. The main task of mine/IED protection is to protect the crew. Remaining mobile is important but comes second to this.
Quote:
There is never an 'ultimate' solution.
Dealing with mines is just a part of the threat spectrum a designer considers in the process of creating the design.
What do you want to tell me?
I never said anything about mine protection is the main threat which have to be considered. I just listed it as part of the protection package a modern IFV needs IMHO.
Quote:
I don't think NATO has a doctrine any more
I meant the countries which are included in NATO.
And all of them which operate tanks accompany them with IFVs and vice versa.
And now you may tell me what makes Australian doctrine so special?
You cannot say that it is different and use it as an argument against my arguments for cross-country performance and protection without defining these special differences in doctrine.
Because I really doubt that the Australian approach to combined arms battles is that different that you think an IFV needs no good protection and all participants do not need the same speed for achieving optimal results.
No, Australia does provide some very credible whole of platform technologies - they just don't get airplay (and I don't believe that we need to trumpet these successes in the public domain either - the beauty of some of them being that they are private unlisted companies and so don't attract attention)
My view is that we should not try and compete at the base level already contested parts of the market - we should continue to play at the niche and specialist level.
let everyone else be the box floggers, they're already set up, and breaking into a contested market is an expensive exercise financially as well as in potential grief.
UDT technology, AI, USV/ROV tech, acoustics, sig management, sensor management are things we excel in and where we are world class.
Forget the vanilla stuff.
This is off-topic I know, but what about CEA Technologies etc? Here we have a reputedly "world class" tech that is wholly indigenous, yet is apparently succeeding in a rather congested market?
I don't think much of the idea of an "indigenous IFV" that is true, but do you think this applies as a generality across the spectrum of Australian Defence Industries?
Read about Aussies in Vietnam and some mention of matchstick-jigged SLR firing full auto.
They even welded 2 magazines together to get in more rounds.
They reported that they mostly couldn't hit anything they were aiming at with a FA SLR, but the noise and firepower had a "demoralising" effect on the VC.
Especially useful for breaking up VC ambushes.
Anyway, in the thick jungle, especially at night, very few actual "aimed" shots were fired by either side as you normally can't see the enemy anyway. You just fired in the general direction.
So in these engagements where 2 sides can't see each other properly in a firefight. the side with more noise and firepower had a psychological advantage.
And apparently, a FA SLR gave a lot of "noise" advantage.
CEA is a radar company in Oz. They use RF emission technology to form phased array panels and are quite good at it, apparently. The company just "hung on" for about 5 years when it finally had a break (a little over a year ago now, IIRC) and was awarded a major contract.
It really is a poster child of Australian military tech development, but if you read between the lines, their history also highlights the problems of doing business in Australia. Great tech, Great people, but frakking lucky to be alive IMHO.
CEA is a radar company in Oz. They use RF emission technology to form phased array panels and are quite good at it, apparently. The company just "hung on" for about 5 years when it finally had a break (a little over a year ago now, IIRC) and was awarded a major contract.
It really is a poster child of Australian military tech development, but if you read between the lines, their history also highlights the problems of doing business in Australia. Great tech, Great people, but frakking lucky to be alive IMHO.
Jep, I tell you that.
It is one major factor. For sure you do not drive around at full speed but there are situations were you need the speed and it is not fun to have IFVs with you which slow you down for example during retreat under fire. I often enough saw this during maneuvers when working together with our Marders.
Reaching the same cross country performance like MBTs is important. And you cannot tell me that this is not important for Australian forces.
And it just puts back your ability to perform a combined arms battle if one of the participants is not able to go the speed of the others..
Ok, you are talking tactical application, but tactical manoeuvre is generally the least of mech unit's actual employment. Sure this is where all the 'excitement' is, but most of the time is spent moving from engagement to engagement.
There is no way an IFV can maintain tank's manoeuvrability, if only because of tank's ability to negotiate obstacles thank's to it's weight. On the other hand in some terrains an tank won't go where an IFV can. This comes doen to commander's judgement and goals, not speed.
What I'm saying is that to perform together with tanks, IFVs and tanks need to share tactical performance in far wider way, and for a tank, the defining tactical characteristics are armour and long range gunnery, not speed. Acquiring targets at long range and defeating them with first round, and preventing being penetrated by enemy weapons are what define tanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
With low tech or light weapons I mean rounds up to 14,5mm and basic RPGs as well as artillery spalls and bomblets..
Yes, this is the basic desing needs for IFV anyway, low or high tech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
And what is the logic behind "We are not able to withstand ATGMs and tank guns so why should we bother about frontal armor?"?
Why should you than even armor an IFV? .
Yes, why have armour on IFV?
All you need is to remain invisible to the enemy. Remember, if you can't see 'em, you can't shoot 'em
However, of course some armour is required, if only to protect passengers from the light weapon fire, and artillery fire in particular which is often indiscrimitary.
What I'm saying is that the amount of frontal armour on an IFV required to defeat a tank gun would make the IFV unbalanced, requiring adding of more armour elsewhere. This leads to designs that are more 'light tanks' then IFVs. Bradley is a case in point, being only about 7 ton lighter then the T-55.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
A good frontal armor gives you a much better chance to be the winner of a direct duel against enemy IFVs. And frontal hits remain the highest possibility when fighting enemy forces.
It is right that shooting and hitting first is the best protection you can have but there are enough occasions where you come under fire without seeing the enemy first even with the best optics and equipment..
But why do you think the enemy will not come without his tanks in the very same way you suggest tanks and infantry shoudl operate?
And why do you suppose the enemy will only target your IFV's frontal armour?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
And I know that mine/IED protection is a combination of construction procedures but of which adding armor is part of. Uncoupled running gears, V shaped bottoms, special uncoupled seats, etc are the other ones.
And against big IEDs and AT-mines mobility kills are not your only problem. The main task of mine/IED protection is to protect the crew. Remaining mobile is important but comes second to this..
Yes, I struggled with this for a long time, considering which is more important, the initial crew survival, or their ability to continue movement.
Essentially one needs to look at IED/mine attack from the enemy point of view. There are two types of such attacks: a) to deny route movement, b) do destroy route users.
In the first case the minitions are passive, and there is no enemy followup activity, so the damaged vehicle is left to deal with the effects of the attack and casualties if any.
In the second case the area of attack is actively targeted, and the attacked vehicle occupants, injured or not, will come under further attack on detonation. It is therefore imperative for the damaged vehicle to be able to retain ability to manoeuvre out of the enemy field of fire, even if at a crawl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waylander
I meant the countries which are included in NATO.
And all of them which operate tanks accompany them with IFVs and vice versa.
And now you may tell me what makes Australian doctrine so special?
You cannot say that it is different and use it as an argument against my arguments for cross-country performance and protection without defining these special differences in doctrine.
Because I really doubt that the Australian approach to combined arms battles is that different that you think an IFV needs no good protection and all participants do not need the same speed for achieving optimal results.
Australian tactics are not that different. What is different is the operational employment. Australians primarily operate as infantry with very few tanks in support. Nor is there the development that took place in Europe as a result of WW2 and Cold War developments. Sometimes I think the Leopards were only bought because an Army is supposed to have tanks, because for infnatry support a different platform is required, but I can't think of one example in existance that would serve as a model. Maybe a tank with an LP 155mm weapon?
Ok, you are talking tactical application, but tactical manoeuvre is generally the least of mech unit's actual employment. Sure this is where all the 'excitement' is, but most of the time is spent moving from engagement to engagement.
There is no way an IFV can maintain tank's manoeuvrability, if only because of tank's ability to negotiate obstacles thank's to it's weight. On the other hand in some terrains an tank won't go where an IFV can. This comes doen to commander's judgement and goals, not speed.
What I'm saying is that to perform together with tanks, IFVs and tanks need to share tactical performance in far wider way, and for a tank, the defining tactical characteristics are armour and long range gunnery, not speed. Acquiring targets at long range and defeating them with first round, and preventing being penetrated by enemy weapons are what define tanks
Yeah I am talking of tactical situations. And don't tell me that the performance in these tactical situations is not important. You are talking of obstacles. Situations where an IFV is not able to overcome an bstacle are much more rare than situations where IFVs give problems to the whole groupe because of them bing not able to cope with the speed of MBTs and vice versa. And speed is an important part of MBT as well as IFV development.
Quote:
Yes, this is the basic desing needs for IFV anyway, low or high tech.
There are enough IFVs out there which do not have this ability and armor is the only possibility to achieve this.
Quote:
Yes, why have armour on IFV?
All you need is to remain invisible to the enemy. Remember, if you can't see 'em, you can't shoot 'em
However, of course some armour is required, if only to protect passengers from the light weapon fire, and artillery fire in particular which is often indiscrimitary.
What I'm saying is that the amount of frontal armour on an IFV required to defeat a tank gun would make the IFV unbalanced, requiring adding of more armour elsewhere. This leads to designs that are more 'light tanks' then IFVs. Bradley is a case in point, being only about 7 ton lighter then the T-55.
And again I tell you that I never said something about making an IFV invulnrerble to heavy tank guns and IFVs.
And there are just enough situations where "If he does not see me he can't shoot me" does not function. For example during ambushes, scout missions, being the leading element, etc. There only armor saves you.
Quote:
But why do you think the enemy will not come without his tanks in the very same way you suggest tanks and infantry shoudl operate?
And why do you suppose the enemy will only target your IFV's frontal armour?
I never said this. But by making an IFV able to withstand enemy IFV fire frontally you eliminate a high percentage of threats to your force. The priority during combined arms battles remain that tanks attack tanks and IFVs atack IFVs. When no enemy tank is left or there is no good shot at an enemy ank than your own tanks begin to attack enemy IFVs.
Why should an enemy do not target your frontal armor? Do you drive against the enemy with your back leading the way? The percentage of possible hits is just the biggest in teh frontal area due to the fact that most engagements happen head on or turn to be head on very fast.
Quote:
Yes, I struggled with this for a long time, considering which is more important, the initial crew survival, or their ability to continue movement.
Essentially one needs to look at IED/mine attack from the enemy point of view. There are two types of such attacks: a) to deny route movement, b) do destroy route users.
In the first case the minitions are passive, and there is no enemy followup activity, so the damaged vehicle is left to deal with the effects of the attack and casualties if any.
In the second case the area of attack is actively targeted, and the attacked vehicle occupants, injured or not, will come under further attack on detonation. It is therefore imperative for the damaged vehicle to be able to retain ability to manoeuvre out of the enemy field of fire, even if at a crawl.
Modern tactics always plan with security forces at minefields. Without security force which is able to protect the mindefield it is not very usefull due to modern combat engineer abilities.
So a force hitting a minefield is normally always actively targeted.
Quote:
Australian tactics are not that different. What is different is the operational employment. Australians primarily operate as infantry with very few tanks in support. Nor is there the development that took place in Europe as a result of WW2 and Cold War developments. Sometimes I think the Leopards were only bought because an Army is supposed to have tanks, because for infnatry support a different platform is required, but I can't think of one example in existance that would serve as a model. Maybe a tank with an LP 155mm weapon?
That is no argument. I kno that Australia relies mostly on infantry but there approach to combined arms is the same.
Mounted mech inf has the same goals and needs the same abilities like in Europe or the US.
Last edited by gf0012-aust; January 14th, 2007 at 02:49 AM.
Yeah I am talking of tactical situations. And don't tell me that the performance in these tactical situations is not important. You are talking of obstacles. Situations where an IFV is not able to overcome an Obstacle are much more rare than situations where IFVs give problems to the whole group because of them being not able to cope with the speed of MBTs and vice versa. And speed is an important part of MBT as well as IFV development.
Ok, Waylander. Most of my information about tactics of mechanized forces is based on English language correspondence and reading.
So far as Europe is concerned, I have the impression that speed is required in two different types of movements.
At the tactical level, BURST of speed is required to move between cover or close on an objective over short distances of 3-800 metres.
The other ‘need for speed’ is when conducting longer road marches, commonly 5-20km. With the later, the road march speed is usually maintained to about 60km/h and both tanks, IFVs and other vehicles can participate.
The problem is therefore the first type of tactical movement.
It seems to me the Leopard 2 is capable of about 45km/h off-road. Challeger 2 only does about 30km/h. Are infantry riding in Marders able to survive a 45km/h ride for half-kilometer?
If Marder’s suspension is anything like M113’s, and until recently not a few German infantry used M113, this would be a bone-jarring ride that would certainly unsettle them before they are expected to possibly face enemy resistance.
Can Puma provide better ride for its passengers at higher speeds?
Maybe it can, but the difference between 35km/h and 45km/h is not significant so far as the vehicle being targeted is concerned.
It seems to me then that there isn’t a need for much higher speeds then currently available.
This is also true for wheeled vehicles which, although commonly claiming top road speeds of 100km/h or more, are not in general faster cross country then the tracked vehicles.
The issue is therefore not speed, but suspension.
Do you have any suggestions for improving IFV suspension for a better ride?
The above applies to Australia also. Although ASLAVs are able to go quite fast over some terrains, in general they are also required to slow down off-road to about 40km/h if the surface is right.
There are enough situations where "If he does not see me he can't shoot me" does not function. For example during ambushes, scout missions, being the leading element, etc. There only armor saves you.
I don’t agree with you. Ambushes are planned to engage IFVs from the side in any case, so frontal armour won’t help there. If scouts get surprised, then it’s their own fault because they are the eyes and ears of the troops they support. If you are worried about being in the lead, use an MBT. If one is not available, there are other methods.
There needs to be a better way of acquiring enemy targets, not heaping more weight onto the IFV-type vehicles.
You hear stories all the time about things the F-88 does but i have never had a cook off or seen one and had few stoppages when using live rounds All of the UD's I have seen have been operator error and no fault of the weapon.
You hear stories all the time about things the F-88 does but i have never had a cook off or seen one and had few stoppages when using live rounds All of the UD's I have seen have been operator error and no fault of the weapon.
every UD is operater error. It just seems that operater errors are much ,much easier with styer. I served from `85 untill 94, and saw only 1 UD prior to the intro of the styer. Then on one Kapyong day,(just after intro of F88) heard about 10! Cook offs did happen, i can assure you. Maybe it was the blanks we were using....cant remember if there were any with live ammo, cant recall. At one stage, we imported a heap of ex- Isreali 5.56. Would have been 1991. We had a prob, that when we chambered a round, the projectile would push back into,and spead the neck of the caseing.(m193 rds with M16A1,s) This was pretty common, and very annoying. I guess thats what happens when someone buys someone elses rejects at a bargain!
I guess when they changed from the SLR to the F-88, they was going to be problems with conversion to a bullpup design. IIRC there were some ARA members not F-88 quallified in 94-95. It is commom for change in the millitary not to go smoothly. Old habits and old training methods do take time to change. I remember here alot of "in my day we didn't do this or that" and I guess it would continue today. I'm sure I will say it to when I strap on the boots again.
Most of the time when I had double feeds, it was with blank ammo. My thoughts on that is when you are using ball ammo, the empty case is shorter than when you are using blank. With the blank round, when it was fired the tip of the round would bust open and not cleanly. This might be why the rounds sometimes failed the eject smoothly. It might not had enough gas pressure to do the job.
A question to Old Faithful. How were the plastic 7.62mm blanks with the SLR? Any problems with double feeds? Cook offs? Maybe this might be a idea to look at with the F-88. Change the blank ammo, make the casings out of a different material. Just a thought
Yeah double feeds happen a lot with blanks. Even more now because they reduced the charge in the blanks some years ago (around 2000 I think) after some guys were injured when 'shot' with blanks. The blanks just don't always have the power to recock the weapon fully, especially once you get a bit of dirt or lack of oil.
But they almost never happen with live rounds. I don't mind the double feeds because it gives the soldiers a heck of a lot of practice at their stoppage drills.
I guess when they changed from the SLR to the F-88, they was going to be problems with conversion to a bullpup design. IIRC there were some ARA members not F-88 quallified in 94-95. It is commom for change in the millitary not to go smoothly. Old habits and old training methods do take time to change. I remember here alot of "in my day we didn't do this or that" and I guess it would continue today. I'm sure I will say it to when I strap on the boots again.
Most of the time when I had double feeds, it was with blank ammo. My thoughts on that is when you are using ball ammo, the empty case is shorter than when you are using blank. With the blank round, when it was fired the tip of the round would bust open and not cleanly. This might be why the rounds sometimes failed the eject smoothly. It might not had enough gas pressure to do the job.
A question to Old Faithful. How were the plastic 7.62mm blanks with the SLR? Any problems with double feeds? Cook offs? Maybe this might be a idea to look at with the F-88. Change the blank ammo, make the casings out of a different material. Just a thought
yep, i know what you mean, the plastic blanks wernt to bad with the slr,but made it very,very dirty! Sometimes you would get one that would bend,and do the old cock,lock look,mag off and clear it. With the Styer, the blanks are brass and a bit shorter than a live ss109. so there not bad either. Also come in 15rd speed loading clips that are great!( as does live ammo)
