RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
What even in the Warthogs? Or are you specifically referring to ground forces?
Return of Tank Destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
Just ground forces, but I would think for how close that they are operating to coalition troops that they would of gone back to API type projectiles, but I do not know this for sure.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Alright thanks, something for me to look out for.
Cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnNf89bv0Mc
Here is the video showing how it works in reality. Rosomaks WIFV platoon overtakes a Truck on Highway. The truck speed is something like 95km/h and Rosomaks is like 110-120 km/h. Units armed with Rosomaks quite often trains driving at high speeds.
I just wondering, there is a famous rumor in the internet. It happened in one of the gulf war, says that there is once the US armor vehicle was able to penetrate 2 T-72 in a glance, with a 120mm DU. but you said there is no DU in Iraq? I am a bit confuse here.
A armor vehicle that has been destroyed by a high caliber DU round is considered a dirty area, recommended restriction zone should still be 300 meters, 360 degrees around vehicle. The US and Russia still carry DU rounds as a primary armor defeating tank round at the present time. The US will do this until they are satisfied with a alternate replacement.
Last edited:
I think, a tank destroyer must know to do some additional things (sail, descent capability) that an MBT cant to do. Otherwise, should the function of the enemy tanks destroing be placed on MBTs, shouldnt it?
What I miss in this discussion is the comparison to a 'light' mechanized brigade versus a 'heavy' brigade. I believe with the current technologies it is possible to create a mobile and hard-hitting fighting combination (much like the Stryker brigades are being developed into), which could be much more capable to oeprate in different scenario's than the current heavy combat mixes like Abrams/Bradley and Leopard/M113 found in many contemporary armies.
What are your views on this and which current developments (like in France and South Africa) are the best suited?
What are your views on this and which current developments (like in France and South Africa) are the best suited?
I cannot found a place for a light brigade in low intensivity conflict bcz the main treat in such conflict is portative ATGMs, RPGs and IEDs. It makes the light vehicles highly vulnerable. However in offensive rapid response scenarios, as like as in defensive scenarios of weaker side against stronger side it can be cost-effective solution. Indeed, a vehicle like light tank destroyer (Sprut) that weight 5 time lighter that western MBT, has 125mm APFSDS with new autoloader and new long-rod DU penetrator. If it hit an Abrams, the penetration probability may be more that 90%, thus the Abrams armor superiority is of no sence, and the outcome of the engagement will be determined by question 'who hit first and more accurately'. More mobile agile and very little low-observable 'Sprut' has clear advance against any western tank in most situation.
In addition, the light brigade can be equipped with light, sailing wehicles like BMD-4 with huge fire-power - 100mm MG, gun-launched ATGMs, 30mm autocannon, machingun and 2-4 Cornets. It give exellent chance for you if you want to mix the attaking heavy Breadly-Abrams regiments with the dirt. In conclusion: light brigade - is a great cost-effective solution for the countries like Venezuela or Iran, which dont seak foreign soil, nor indend to play a role of world policeman, but unfortunately have some unresolved problem with the world 'sharks'.
For sure light brigades have advantages when it comes to deployment and maintenace costs.
But if a light brigade has to go head on against a heavy one it will be crushed to pieces.
The Heavy brigade can take much more heavy enemy fire before being stopped by it and its tracked vehicles make it more maneuverable in the terrain.
Not to talk of the heavy artillery support consisting of 155mm SPHs and MLRS which are going to whin every counterfire battle against the light guns and mortars of a light brigade.
Light tank hunters can also operate well in defensive operations and ambushes but there is a certain need for counterattacks in every mobile defense operation and there again they are not as capable as heavy MBTs.
But if a light brigade has to go head on against a heavy one it will be crushed to pieces.
The Heavy brigade can take much more heavy enemy fire before being stopped by it and its tracked vehicles make it more maneuverable in the terrain.
Not to talk of the heavy artillery support consisting of 155mm SPHs and MLRS which are going to whin every counterfire battle against the light guns and mortars of a light brigade.
Light tank hunters can also operate well in defensive operations and ambushes but there is a certain need for counterattacks in every mobile defense operation and there again they are not as capable as heavy MBTs.
I agree with you Waylander
light forces are good for Iraqi type missions or working behind enemy lines, if they come up against a good mechanized heavy unit then they will be in for big trouble. you cannot continue in a meeting engagement with heavy forces, you can hit them one or two times but then you better get out of there.
light forces are good for Iraqi type missions or working behind enemy lines, if they come up against a good mechanized heavy unit then they will be in for big trouble. you cannot continue in a meeting engagement with heavy forces, you can hit them one or two times but then you better get out of there.
While I agree with your comments in principle and believe that western nations need Armoured/mech forces, it is also important to look at just which nations would be able to mount a credible mech threat.
If you look at some contemporary light forces such as a Royal Marine Commando or a US Army Parachute battalion where there are around 18 ATGMs along with LAWs (or equivalent) plus CAS in the form of Attack helos and more general air support (along with modern ISATR). It is hard to see many nations with the ability to mount a credible threat to such a formation.
Please don’t get me wrong the potential for casualties would be greater IMO, but it is hard to see a situation of out right defeat.
My comments really focus on failed states/third world countries where there may be armoured units, but no real ability to operate them as a cohesive unit and not ability to provide them with air cover to operate un hindered.
For sure against third world countries light forces with air cover should be able to hold position aginst nearly every possible enemy force.
And I totally agree that against those countries light forces are the best solution.
But there are not just those third world countries out there. The whole middle east is full of countries which I would not like to go against with just light forces.
But the Royal Marines or Paras you are talking about are light infantry and not the light brigade we are talking about.
They have the same advantages and suffer the same problems as any light infantry.
They are not very mobile.
They have to hold their position once they've choosen it because they will not be able to retreat fast enough in the face of incoming mech/armored forces closing to much to their position.
They are weaker in open terrain and if there is not enough cover ATGMs can easily be one shot weapons.
They are also very weak when it comes to attacking fortified positions.
And once the weather is too bad air cover is not going to save their ass while heavier forces still can rely on their own AT weapons and artillery.
And I totally agree that against those countries light forces are the best solution.
But there are not just those third world countries out there. The whole middle east is full of countries which I would not like to go against with just light forces.
But the Royal Marines or Paras you are talking about are light infantry and not the light brigade we are talking about.
They have the same advantages and suffer the same problems as any light infantry.
They are not very mobile.
They have to hold their position once they've choosen it because they will not be able to retreat fast enough in the face of incoming mech/armored forces closing to much to their position.
They are weaker in open terrain and if there is not enough cover ATGMs can easily be one shot weapons.
They are also very weak when it comes to attacking fortified positions.
And once the weather is too bad air cover is not going to save their ass while heavier forces still can rely on their own AT weapons and artillery.
Agree with all of your points, the issue being the logistics footprint that a mech formation incurs also the time it takes to deploy.
To be honest I prefer the idea of landing the light forces along with transport and attack helos, if you have the C-17 (or An-124 etc) then land a platoon of MTBs as well, that can make the world of difference. I know the USMC usually has a platoon of M1s attached to an MEU and find them to be quite useful even if in smaller numbers.
If the opponent is of a higher level then obviously you deploy accordingly, and would take your time positioning the right forces.
Modern fire-and-forget ATGMs like Javelin have changed this. Infantry can shoot and scoot before they're acquired.
The Israeli Spike-ER and LR can be fired from defilade in a lock-on-after-launch mode.
Both techniques greatly increase the survivability of ATGM teams.
until now I see posts where either discussions are about light-infantry-type units or light brigades with light equipment (towed guns/mortars, stryker-type infantry vehicles), on which I agree will have very difficult if pitched against a heavy brigade.
However, looking at existing weapons systems like the South-African G6 SP gun, the Brasilian ASTROS MLRS and tank destroyers like already discussed, coupled with a strong reconnaissance screen, attack helicopters and UAV/UCAV, a light brigade can still operate in a heavy environment in my opinion.
USMC light units fought pitched battles against Iraqi tank forces and won through their technological advantages. several scenario's and recent exercises have shown that a technology-driven light armoured force can defeat a heavy brigade with fire-and-movement.
So in my opinion, a good light armoured mix can be a very pain in the ass for a heavy force enemy if employed properly. It is not just the weapins systems, it is also tactics , manoeuvre and innovative use of your troops and weapons.
However, looking at existing weapons systems like the South-African G6 SP gun, the Brasilian ASTROS MLRS and tank destroyers like already discussed, coupled with a strong reconnaissance screen, attack helicopters and UAV/UCAV, a light brigade can still operate in a heavy environment in my opinion.
USMC light units fought pitched battles against Iraqi tank forces and won through their technological advantages. several scenario's and recent exercises have shown that a technology-driven light armoured force can defeat a heavy brigade with fire-and-movement.
So in my opinion, a good light armoured mix can be a very pain in the ass for a heavy force enemy if employed properly. It is not just the weapins systems, it is also tactics , manoeuvre and innovative use of your troops and weapons.
With the tracking ability of a tank company you have to be very fast to get outside of the killing radius of a 120mm/125mm HE(SH) after firing your Javelin.
But it for sure gives you better chances than older ATGMs.
And as said before I agree that with the emphasis on oversea missions in low tech countries you need a bunch of light and middle forces.
But you just cannot hope for the enemy always being tactical and strategical inferior (As for tech the US can for sure believe this but it might not be always as big as in Iraq for example).
Even in 2003 the US Army said that they would not have been succeded this good on their way to Bagdad without their heavy forces and it is not like they faced the same heavy forces like in '91.
The right mix is the key and I totally agree that many NATO countries have to get rid of some of their heavy forces. But there is a reason that for example one of our prime intervention units is the 1. Panzerdivsion (1st Armored Division) together with all the airmobile, airborn, light infantry, etc. units. You just need a real fist.
But it for sure gives you better chances than older ATGMs.
And as said before I agree that with the emphasis on oversea missions in low tech countries you need a bunch of light and middle forces.
But you just cannot hope for the enemy always being tactical and strategical inferior (As for tech the US can for sure believe this but it might not be always as big as in Iraq for example).
Even in 2003 the US Army said that they would not have been succeded this good on their way to Bagdad without their heavy forces and it is not like they faced the same heavy forces like in '91.
The right mix is the key and I totally agree that many NATO countries have to get rid of some of their heavy forces. But there is a reason that for example one of our prime intervention units is the 1. Panzerdivsion (1st Armored Division) together with all the airmobile, airborn, light infantry, etc. units. You just need a real fist.