Mini Abrams...

[Waylander]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Aussie Digger]

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]

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.

 

[Waylander]

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]

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).

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.

 

[AGRA]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.