What it was supposed to mean is yes I can respect your opinion on the subject that we were discussing.
Return of Tank Destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
Just to get away from the armour penetration aspect and back on to the vehicles themselves.
There is a lot of potential for these vehicles in primarily light infantry/WAFV dependent forces but:
1: Will they be able to run on logs chains based around light armour/WAFVs
2: Is a 25,000kg (Centauro 105mm) just a mobility kill waiting to happen
3: Can Wheeled fire support vehicles provide tactical flexibility or are they going to be mostly road bound by their weight?
Given the logistical burden and the Orphan killingness of MBTs (everyone knows that tracked IFVs and fast jets were invented for the sole purpose of killing photogenic children and puppies) the idea of 105mm or better yet 120mm equipped WAFVs, ideally with improved levels of protection (12.7mm/20mm all round) would greatly appeal to forces like the Irish who want to expand their combat capabilities under the auspices of fantasy peacekeeping were everyone sits down over a cup of tea and talks out their childhood issues under the benevolent gaze of some foul smelling hippy.
So it would be mostly the ability of these vehicles to allow a light mech brigade or bn group to function more effectively as part of a multi-national force or as a militia basher that would concern this customer group.
There is a lot of potential for these vehicles in primarily light infantry/WAFV dependent forces but:
1: Will they be able to run on logs chains based around light armour/WAFVs
2: Is a 25,000kg (Centauro 105mm) just a mobility kill waiting to happen
3: Can Wheeled fire support vehicles provide tactical flexibility or are they going to be mostly road bound by their weight?
Given the logistical burden and the Orphan killingness of MBTs (everyone knows that tracked IFVs and fast jets were invented for the sole purpose of killing photogenic children and puppies) the idea of 105mm or better yet 120mm equipped WAFVs, ideally with improved levels of protection (12.7mm/20mm all round) would greatly appeal to forces like the Irish who want to expand their combat capabilities under the auspices of fantasy peacekeeping were everyone sits down over a cup of tea and talks out their childhood issues under the benevolent gaze of some foul smelling hippy.
So it would be mostly the ability of these vehicles to allow a light mech brigade or bn group to function more effectively as part of a multi-national force or as a militia basher that would concern this customer group.
A mine which blows off one wheel won't stop it. A tracked AFV hitting the same mine probably would be a mobility kill.
It's faster, quieter, has longer range & lower logistics requirements than a tracked AFV. But its off-road capability is less.
This type of vehicle is not intended to go toe to toe with heavy armor, they are designed to hit you in a ambush situation and get out of their as fast as possible, they are also good at recon missions for follow on forces or probing for weakness`s in defensive positions.
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
I think more likely roles in the short term would be convoy escort and giving close direct fire support in Urban and greenfields scenarios.
As the Canadians have demonstrated the viability of using LAVs in OIBUA/MOUT the latter role seems assured, so I'd expect market growth for large bore weapons on WAFVs.
As the Canadians have demonstrated the viability of using LAVs in OIBUA/MOUT the latter role seems assured, so I'd expect market growth for large bore weapons on WAFVs.
The U.S Army is very happy with it`s Strikers in this role.
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
I got the impression that the stryker has been more or less used for breaking ambushes and cordon and search operations.
Also HMGs and GMGs hardly count as large bore weapons.
The US army seems too amply equipped with MBTs and IFVs to really need a dedicated tank destroyer in the current context, the only exception being the desire for an organic FSV capability in the Stryker Brigades.
Also HMGs and GMGs hardly count as large bore weapons.
The US army seems too amply equipped with MBTs and IFVs to really need a dedicated tank destroyer in the current context, the only exception being the desire for an organic FSV capability in the Stryker Brigades.
They are actually finding that the Stryker can be just as effective if not more than IFV in the Urbanized settings in Iraq. A machine gun can actually be more effective during convoy duties in places like Iraq versus a cannon because you can lay down a lot of lead in a short period of time. Area suppression is the key, keep the enemies head down until you can out manuver him to either defeat him or get the heck out of there.
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
Well I can see your point in that but I think that in OOTW rapid target acquisition and accurate effective surpressive fires are going to be more effective than sheer volumes of fire.
This is both in terms of minimising fatalities and property damage among the civpop as well as taking the enemy out of play before they can do a runner.
While HMGs and small bore cannons can get through any residential wall given time there is a lot to be said for being able to put a high velocity sabot type round or two into a confirmed position without getting into the idea of adopting non NATO calibres like the OTO Melara 60mm HyperVelocity Gun, I think that it should be considered that large bore guns on WAFVs have a lot more potential than the HE thrower/desparation Anti-Tank shot for COIN and Peace Enforcement.
This is both in terms of minimising fatalities and property damage among the civpop as well as taking the enemy out of play before they can do a runner.
While HMGs and small bore cannons can get through any residential wall given time there is a lot to be said for being able to put a high velocity sabot type round or two into a confirmed position without getting into the idea of adopting non NATO calibres like the OTO Melara 60mm HyperVelocity Gun, I think that it should be considered that large bore guns on WAFVs have a lot more potential than the HE thrower/desparation Anti-Tank shot for COIN and Peace Enforcement.
An HE or Heat round is alot more effective than using a Sabot round, Sabot is used for destroying armored vehicles. You can use Heat or HE to take out building structures or bunkers, HE is far better for taking out troops in the open. Sabot ammunition uses the principle of energy and mass to destroy armored vehicles, if you fire it at a fighting position or structure for the most part all you are going to do is punch holes into it. If you are going to have wheeled tank destroyers then by all means give them the best weapons platform that is out there, just do not try to fight them like tanks because the outcome will not be really good.
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
Well I certainly wouldn't, especially not in the ATGM age.
My point about sabot rounds, that sometimes the ideal action in a contact might be to just punch a hole in cover and whomever is behind it. Rather than bring the building down or kill everyone else in the room as I believe a HEAT round is likely to do via overpressure and temperature.
The problem with employing that sort of tactic of course is you would need incredibly fast target acquisition and minute accuracy, but I believe that level of capability is not far off current technology.
My point about sabot rounds, that sometimes the ideal action in a contact might be to just punch a hole in cover and whomever is behind it. Rather than bring the building down or kill everyone else in the room as I believe a HEAT round is likely to do via overpressure and temperature.
The problem with employing that sort of tactic of course is you would need incredibly fast target acquisition and minute accuracy, but I believe that level of capability is not far off current technology.
But the effect of a KE behind a wall is not enough to be sure that you eliminate the target.
And ATGMs are much to expensive to use them to punch holes into walls. The pentagon is not happy about the uge amount of Javelins used in Iraq exactly for that.
And ATGMs are much to expensive to use them to punch holes into walls. The pentagon is not happy about the uge amount of Javelins used in Iraq exactly for that.
This is the reason why we are more prone to use machine guns in Iraq versus HE or Heat rounds due to innocent civilians that would be in the line of fire, the U.S Army doesn`t even have a HE type of round for the M256 at this time, but we are working on that issue. Also keep in mind that alot of countries are still using DU penetrators and they are really expensive to just launch at a hostile target, the M1`s in Iraq are not even carrying them now as a combat load, they are carrying Heat rounds.
Yep - you are probably more prone to having someone needing to change his undergarments versus taking him out.
And yes the pentagon is really pissed about the Javelin issue. Overkill and very expensive.
Imshi-Yallah
New Member
Ok thanks for the correction on that.
Re the Javelins, this is why it's good to keep your Carl Gustavs, or go Gucci and get the MKIII version.
Re the Javelins, this is why it's good to keep your Carl Gustavs, or go Gucci and get the MKIII version.
Yes, i especeally like that part of lame excuse. Considering what USA use depleted uranium rounds, on the place of iraqi civilians i would much prefer HE round collateral damage to depleted uranium radiation & poison what spreads across miles away...
USA didnt had proper HE round becouse of wrong perception of the tank role. You just have to remember what role was assigned to tank originally once it was inducted - i.e. supporting infantry and breaking enemy defence. And that role STILL is most important. Without proper HE round USA tanks are only half-tanks.
Back up your proof that we are launching or have launched DU penetrator rounds at Iraqi civilians, and I think that there is nothing wrong with our perception on how we have our Air land battle tactics set up. Could we use a true HE round giving the current circumstances, yes. If we have to fight another large scale military force in the future during the initial phase of that operation I will be content of carrying a combat load of just Sabot and Heat rounds until the majority of the enemies combat vehicles have been taken out, I think some of you guy`s may not realize what a Heat round can do to a building structure/bunker. A 50 cal machine gun can do alot of damage also.
Jup.
It is not like a HEAT is totally useless compared to KE and HE rounds.
It is just nowadays more easy to produce a programmable very effective HE round.
But if there is for example an enemy group spotted in a building some HEAT rounds would also give them hell. Especially against fortified positions and bunkers a HEAT gives you the advantage of a good penetration capability. Early HE rounds don't give you that chance.
Just modern HE rounds are more versatile because you can program them to explode directly at impact or after penetrating a structure.
This was not possible in the past and also the normal western MBT's main task during cold war was the fight against sovjet tank columns in northern germany and the fulda gap.
As Eckherl said. Even nowadays you have to defeat the massed mechanized enemy ground forces before it comes to MOUT and anti guerilla operations.
And for this a huge amount of KEs is still a have to.
It is not like a HEAT is totally useless compared to KE and HE rounds.
It is just nowadays more easy to produce a programmable very effective HE round.
But if there is for example an enemy group spotted in a building some HEAT rounds would also give them hell. Especially against fortified positions and bunkers a HEAT gives you the advantage of a good penetration capability. Early HE rounds don't give you that chance.
Just modern HE rounds are more versatile because you can program them to explode directly at impact or after penetrating a structure.
This was not possible in the past and also the normal western MBT's main task during cold war was the fight against sovjet tank columns in northern germany and the fulda gap.
As Eckherl said. Even nowadays you have to defeat the massed mechanized enemy ground forces before it comes to MOUT and anti guerilla operations.
And for this a huge amount of KEs is still a have to.
I have not read of any cases of US Army or Marine units intentionally using DU rounds on civilian targets. DU is designed to be effective against tank armor. The damage it causes to the internal structure of a tank can only happen after penetrating tank armor. I highly doubt the DU rounds would do a tremendous amount of damage compared to HE rounds. Who or what are the sources about that kind of information?
U.S forces in Iraq are not using DU ammunition.