This is a discussion on Australian Army Discussions and Updates within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; The problem is therefore the first type of tactical movement.
It seems to me the Leopard 2 is capable of ...
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.
Maximum off-road speed of Leopard II goes up to 60-70km/h if necessary. Naturally this speed is decreasing the heavier the terrain is. Marders are not able to follow this and I even outran Marder which were driving forward while myself was driving backwards. With the introduction of the Marder our whole mech inf is using it instead of the M113. Since than no M113s are to be actively used in combat but provide transport capability and chassis for special tasks (C3i, radio operators, medics) and other support troops with some light armored tracked transport asset (And they hate it ). Fuchs wheeled APC is much more liked among the troops with the Boxer APC being the future reducing the number of M113s operated in the Bundeswehr even much more.
The Puma changes the speed situation. He is able to do the same cross-country speed like the Leopard II.
And he has a new decoupled undercarriage which together with the new decoupled seats improves its protection against mines/IEDs and is much more luxury for the passengers during cross-country rides.
Quote:
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 are thinking too much of ideal situations. You just cannot say that it is the fault of the scouts that they have been seen first.
Just talk to Aussi Digger or Eckherl, or some other former soldier operating in mech units and ask them how often it happens that everything works right and you are the first one to see, engage and kill the enemy.
And especially during heavy mobile engagements against enemy mech forces you just cannot hope for not being targeted especially frontally.
Yes, the old stoppage drill. It is good for this to be practiced but sometimes I think it gives the weapon a bad name when it gets reported and it happens a lot.
Every weapon has problems from time to time. Run away M60's to cook offs from the M2HB's. I remember a bloke I did time with in Tully had his F89 cook off and he got fragged in the arm pit.
The point is most of the UD's happen when the operater stuff's up and then you hear things like "it just went off". UD's are always going to be a problem, it just proves more hand on with loaded weapons and doing your drill over and over is the only way to reduce casualties from this problem. Blaming the weapon doesn't help. Cheap ammo looks good on the books but it can lead to cook offs, poor weapon handling does lead to UD's and not cleaning your weapon because you didn't have time leads to double feeds.
Solution...paintball rounds. This would keep your bounds shorter and your arse down. Different colours for the opfor...see who really did shoot they mate in the arse. A bit of pain for sloppy training before you get tapped for real.
Yeah I agree, I think the bad reputation the F88 has is in part due to how much it jams with blanks.
I've heard the M60s were bad for runaway guns. Still can happen with the F89 and MAG but it seems the M60 was notorious for it.
How did the guy manage to get himself hit in the armpit? Was his armpit in front of the weapon, or was it shrapnel from an exploding "round in the chamber" ??
The RAInf already uses the paint rounds ('Simunition') at Singleton
Do you use a MILES like system additional to traditional training and paintball training in Australia?
Yes, it's called TESS (Tactical Engagement Simulation System) and it's practically the same as MILES. If you watch the video I linked to above you can see it in operation. The little boxes attached to the barrel are the lasers and the soldiers are wearing the receivers on their bodies and helmets. The beeping you can hear periodically is the noise the TESS system makes when you are 'dead.'
It's actually getting pretty advanced. Pretty much all weapons can be simulated, soon to include land mines and tank guns. In my experience though it's very difficult to zero properly, which can make it hard to hit anybody. Especially since you can't see fall of shot.
Thanks.
So maybe a little bit off-topic but how many weapons/vehicles aside from the infantry weapons (ASLAV, Abrams, Bushmaster, M113, etc.) are already implemented or are going to be implemented?
We use a very similar system (AGDUS) and stopped using plastic training rounds for this for obvious reasons. The same you described.
Thanks.
So maybe a little bit off-topic but how many weapons/vehicles aside from the infantry weapons (ASLAV, Abrams, Bushmaster, M113, etc.) are already implemented or are going to be implemented?
Pretty much all of them. ASLAV and Abrams for sure, I assume Bushmaster and M113 will be added too. Bushmaster won't be hard since it's just armed with a standard MG. Stick a couple of sensors on the vehicle that go off if hit by anything more than small arms and you've got a TESS Bushmaster. Eventually they will probably incorporate it into the Tigers as well but they've more pressing issues with those at the moment, like getting them operational.
Eventually I think they want to have a complete, army-wide TESS system. There are a number of sub-projects involved. One to introduce land mines, one to introduce vehicle combat. The vehicle project is interesting because as well as the damage model, they need to find a way to model gravity, which of course doesn't affect lasers (at least not enough to be noticeable!).
Well, that good to hear. I think other units of the army as a whole should have the paintball rounds available for training and IMT's. Give them more hands on with loaded weapons and make holding a rifle etc second nature for non infantry units. I believe the cooks of 5/7RAR had the most Ud's in Timor, they doulbed their abilities to not only kill you with food but also with small arms fire.
When you see soldiers from the other side during training, it would be nice to hit them with something more than a laser that makes you go beep. Going home a welt on ya arse and having an uncomfortable ride home because you went "John Wayne" during training would make things more real. Leave the TESS for the large hardware.
Does this simua ammo fire from the F-88 or does it need a airgun? I have heard much about it from over here behind the bamboo curtain.
FYI if you want to know...I have been in China for 3 years learning Chinese, teaching a tad of English and having a rest from working to hard. It allows me time to heal for old injuries and get my fitness back before heading home.
The problem with paintball is that it only allows close quarter combat training.
For everything else the small effective range and the huge ballistic curve is a problem.
For simulating normal realistic battle especially when including heavier (vehicle mounted) weapons you need laser systems like MILES or your TESS.
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
Double-feeds are caused by insufficient gas being diverted from the barrel to the piston (and in the F-88 thence to the operating rod) to force the working parts rearward sufficienty to allow the round to clear the ejection port. It is not a problem caused by deformation of the round. I've known all weapons to suffer from doublefeeds, be they firing blank or ball ammunition. It is invariably casued by a combination of fouling and as I mentioned insufficient gas generation.
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.
At approximately the 1:00 mark you can see a stoppage cleared with commendable speed.
While at the 1:30 mark you'll note that the firer puts several rounds into "dead" bodies. While commendable tactics, its rather foolish to show it occuring when it might well be considered to constitute a war crime. I also found they weren't using sufficient grenades nor firing through walls - although both would be difficult to simular through the use of lasers. :
Originally Posted by Simon9
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.
At approximately the 1:00 mark you can see a stoppage cleared with commendable speed.
Thanks for the link Simon. Good point about stoppages caused by blanks providing practice at their stoppage drills. In this case carrying out the drill in a pressure situation would be a useful experience at clearing a jammed weapon when there is little time to stop and think about it.
Cheers
Last edited by Tasman; January 15th, 2007 at 12:16 AM.
Reason: wrong quote
While at the 1:30 mark you'll note that the firer puts several rounds into "dead" bodies. While commendable tactics, its rather foolish to show it occuring when it might well be considered to constitute a war crime.
Good point rickshaw. Whilst it is probably realistic training, the media is always ready to seize on this sort of thing to show soldiers in a poor light. IMO they should train for it but leave the 'nasty' bits out of PR films.
). Fuchs wheeled APC is much more liked among the troops with the Boxer APC being the future reducing the number of M113s operated in the Bundeswehr even much more.
:
