Light Tanks

[riksavage]

AGRA – One more question, and don’t take this the wrong way, but based on the findings of the JANUS tests, why did Australia invest in a reconditioned MBT fleet instead of buying more light armour (LAV’s et al) fitted with heavier direct fire-weapons, long range ATW’s, mortars etc.?

If the findings were that conclusive I would have thought the Australians (having a relatively small army) would have focused their efforts on achieving decisive results with smaller numbers of fast agile armour instead of buying limited numbers of MBT's.

 

[eckherl]

@AGRA

At the current time the STRYKER MGS is a infantry support vehicle not a modern tank killer, in your opinion what 105mm KE projectile will have no issues punching out a Russian T-90S and I will be conservative, with a range of 1600 meters. Also you do realize that a STRYKER MGS carries 8 rounds in its auto loader with a additional 10 held in reserve that requires at least a few moments to reload.

 

[AGRA]

AGRA – One more question, and don’t take this the wrong way, but based on the findings of the JANUS tests, why did Australia invest in a reconditioned MBT fleet instead of buying more light armour (LAV’s et al) fitted with heavier direct fire-weapons, long range ATW’s, mortars etc.?

I've mentioned why a few times in the posts above. Basically the all-LAV force wasn’t superior in one particular type of terrain: close terrain like cities. There the all-LAV force was disastrous in high intensity fighting – COIN they were great.

The question for C4ISR is exactly the right one.
But the right question has already been raised.
What if the enemy heavy forces has such equipment?

Well they don’t have it. We’re not talking about Australia going to war with France here… A C4ISR system includes everything from BMS terminals in your vehicles through to the AEW&C aircraft and so on. Russia doesn’t have this, China doesn’t have this, Iran doesn’t have this, etc. Also if they try to field this type force their aircraft will be shoot down and high bandwidth communications disrupted.

Until someone can reasonable challenge western air superiority – and no one can – we won’t have to fight an enemy with an equivalent C4ISR system. Everything else is fiction and while we can imagine it that doesn’t make it real.

The I strike were I want argument works well when you have much space to play with.
Once you have areas and objects to defend as well as restricted space you get problems.
Or when you have to get the enemy out of its defensive positions.

OK so its not a good idea for Israel and Switzerland, everyone else but… Modern war is going to be fought in someone else’s backyard for western countries. This is the way of the world. We will fight in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. Plus what are we talking about here? Tactical moves of 50km? That’s plenty of breathing space.

The LAV force is not fighting by itself it has helos and tactical fighters in support. Let the heavy tanks stay dug in if they want. Makes them easier to bomb.

We can’t base our expectations on combat on all-things-being-equal models. There is the way we will fight and there is the way our enemies will fight. And the land force does not fight by itself. Nor is the enemy inactive. Which is what doomed the all-LAV concept and why FCS/FRES has grown in weight to add heavy armour. The enemy will never try and fight us in the open again its all close combat now – in cities, in jungles and amongst populations.

 

[AGRA]

At the current time the STRYKER MGS is a infantry support vehicle not a modern tank killer, in your opinion what 105mm KE projectile will have no issues punching out a Russian T-90S and I will be conservative, with a range of 1600 meters. Also you do realize that a STRYKER MGS carries 8 rounds in its auto loader with a additional 10 held in reserve that requires at least a few moments to reload.

Yes, No, Yes, Yes.

I'm not a big fan of having a debate with someone when they attribute to me things I didn't say or express... If you please note I am discussing experiments conducted that are not necessarily 'my opinion'...

The all-LAV force experiments were conducted 10 years ago and not with exactly what Stryker MGS or other systems emerged as. The gun tank element of the all-LAV force in the experiments was obviously a vehicle that didn't exist at that time - but had the mobility of the LAVs combined with a high velocity 105mm/120mm gun with anti-tank ammunition. Something like a Rooikat 105.

They were also supported by air, attack helicopters and tactical fighters, advanced artillery with Sensor Fuzed Munitions, and ATGM launchers.

And yes this force had no problems taking out your T-90S type vehicles. The T-64 and its descendants are not exactly well-protected vehicles. Since much of the lethality of the LAV vs MBT battles is obtained by swarming attacks from flanks then even with 105mm guns they could probably make a mess of much better tanks like M1s and CR2s.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Just want to get something streight. Are you simply stating that in simulations a western light formation equiped with "LAV" tank destroyers and its supporting elements defeated a heavy formation equiped with MBT's? Or are you advocating the removal of the MBT from future western order of battle? Somewere in between perhaps?

 

[nero]

weight

.

jost want to get this straight.

under what weight ( in tonnes ) would a tank qualify as a light-tank ???

i mean would something like the russian BMP-III qualify as a light tank ??


.

 

[gf0012-aust]

.

jost want to get this straight.

under what weight ( in tonnes ) would a tank qualify as a light-tank ???

i mean would something like the russian BMP-III qualify as a light tank ??


.

"light" refers to capability - not necessarily mass. its a requirements definition and varies in some countries due to doctrine issues.

 

[nero]

thanx

"light" refers to capability - not necessarily mass. its a requirements definition and varies in some countries due to doctrine issues.

.
thanks for the clarification dude !!

appreciate it .


.

 

[DavidDCM]

My apologies if what I said lead to this implication it was not my intention, nor frankly was it in the wording of what I posted…

No, I'm sorry bout that. I just had that impression, but if it wasn't your intention to do so, i honestly excuse for that allegation.

---

Maybe we should first settle on exactly what kind of war we are talking about. War between equal opponents, or modern army vs. obsolete third-world military?
Outmanouevering does not always work, for example if you're intended to take a fortified position, you can not really use a shoot-n-scoot tactic, you have to directly face the enemy and kinda wrestle him down or force him out of that position, relying on your gun and your armour. At some point of such an attack you just can't avoid to get some your unit's vehicles hit anymore, and that's where a Light tank force would just be munched up by MBT's. On the other hand, an approaching MBT force can get very close very soon (even under losses) and so a light tank fleet wont be able to hold a position for long.
It is of course true that soviet/russian based tank designs are not as heavily protected as their western counterparts. But nevertheless they are protected. If a tank gun has a high hit probability up to 4.000 m it doesn't mean that everything you hit will be destroyed. Maybe you have to approach up to 2.000 m to penetrate the T-90's armour (these numbers are fully fictional), and the closer you get the higher is the probability to get hit yourself. And if that happens, a Light tank will immediatly be destroyed, whereas with some luck a MBT will just swallow that round.
And next to this, outmanouevering is not THAT easy. As I said, MBT's aren't slow, immobile steel beasts anymore. They can change their position and direction as fast as any light vehicle, in rough terrain even faster.

 

[AGRA]

Maybe we should first settle on exactly what kind of war we are talking about. War between equal opponents, or modern army vs. obsolete third-world military?

I’m talking about real war and the only kind we will face for the next 50 years (at least) in any realistic assessment of the future. To get a good frame of reference for what we will face in the future can I suggest people read (its not long, just a few pages) or at least have a look at:

Square Pegs for Round Holes? Current Approaches to Future Warfare and the Need to Adapt by Brig. Michael Krause, Australian Army

http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/lwsc/Publications/WP/WP_132.pdf

It details quite clearly the western (US lead) defence capability overmatch and how no one can really challenge it in the foreseeable future. And by this I very much mean China, Russia or anyone else with pretensions of fielding a modern army. Quite simply they can’t spend anywhere near close to the west and the west is exponentially fielding new technologies and capabilities that they won’t come to match.

Just staying within the top 12 defence spenders (Australia is 12th) the US and those countries with mutual defence alliances with the US are spending 66% of the world’s defence expenditure compared to China and Russia each on 6%. US defence spending is growing and US wealth, population, access to natural resources, etc are all growing.

As Krause says “The United States is showing no signs of flagging in its hegemonic pre-eminence, and while the growth of so-called challengers such as China and India is extraordinary, both countries are still so far behind that they would have to eclipse all historical trends to catch the United States.”

Planning to fight a non-existent enemy of equal military capability is a sure fire path to making sure we don’t have the right force structure to win. Because no such threat is there and just because we don’t have an enemy peer army doesn’t mean enemies won’t find ways to fight us – this is what we need to be able to defeat.

And next to this, outmanouevering is not THAT easy. As I said, MBT's aren't slow, immobile steel beasts anymore. They can change their position and direction as fast as any light vehicle, in rough terrain even faster.

Sure but again they will be outnumbered and outflanked because of the much faster high-level tactical mobility of the lightweight mechanised force.

Part of the problem of peacetime individual and collective training is it focuses on the particular task of the unit in hand. In battle all elements of the combat force are applied. While a lightweight force may not have the armour to get into a close range slugging fight with MBTs it doesn’t have to. If any enemy digs itself in then it loses manoeuvrability and will simply be bypassed or destroyed by artillery or air delivered precision weapons.

Armour has its role but increasingly it’s not out in comparatively open terrain (rural) where highly informed, high speed, ultra-high lethality weapons systems will see, concentrate and destroy them. The role of armour is to provide the protection to engage in close combat in restricted terrain. This is the objective of what I’m trying to communicate – we have to start refocusing tank design away from being an anti-tank system to being a close support system.

 

[eckherl]

Yes, No, Yes, Yes.

I'm not a big fan of having a debate with someone when they attribute to me things I didn't say or express... If you please note I am discussing experiments conducted that are not necessarily 'my opinion'...

The all-LAV force experiments were conducted 10 years ago and not with exactly what Stryker MGS or other systems emerged as. The gun tank element of the all-LAV force in the experiments was obviously a vehicle that didn't exist at that time - but had the mobility of the LAVs combined with a high velocity 105mm/120mm gun with anti-tank ammunition. Something like a Rooikat 105.

They were also supported by air, attack helicopters and tactical fighters, advanced artillery with Sensor Fuzed Munitions, and ATGM launchers.

And yes this force had no problems taking out your T-90S type vehicles. The T-64 and its descendants are not exactly well-protected vehicles. Since much of the lethality of the LAV vs MBT battles is obtained by swarming attacks from flanks then even with 105mm guns they could probably make a mess of much better tanks like M1s and CR2s.

Please accept my apologies, I must of mistook what you were implying. This type of scenario that you are describing is still aways off from becoming a reality, it has been envisioned by the U.S since the first Persian Gulf War and the only way that it stands a chance is if you can gaurantee total control of the ground and air, also you need the weapons systems with munitions that will ensure first round kill capability. I still have my doubts at the present moment just like I did in the early nineties.

 

[Waylander]

The US wants to see how the Stryker Brigades can perform against enemy heavy forces of limited capabilities.
This is essential for a fast deployable force like the Stryker Brigades.
And while those Bigades add needed capabilties which are between the heavy armored/mech inf divisions and the light/airmobile/airborn divisions.

But still the US is not intending to use the Stryker Brigades in a big offensive operation when they have the chance and time of building up heavier forces.

The main AT-capability of a Stryker Brigade is given to it by shitloads of Javelin launchers while the 27 MGS (intended numbers when operational?) just at a limited AT-role.
So your idea of swarming attacks along the side to get shots there is very optimistical to perform for mainly motorized light infantry which needs to dismount to get the AT-weapons of the brigade to work.

And bypassing enemy forces as well as relying heavily on air superiority is not always possible.
I can imagine enough actual possible areas of operation which do not favor such a strategy and make it possible that easily like during OIF in Iraq.

Kosovo, Korean Peninsula, other balkan areas, Pakistan,...

All of them with limited space and big numbers of enemy forces within a relatively small area as well as often enough limited ground routes for offensives through the area and choke points which need to be taken by ground forces.
And they have a weather which can deny or severely restrict the use of air power.

And when the Australian government purchased the M1A1 AIM only because the light LAV forces were severely restricted in their performance in urban areas (What is surprisingly the main operational area for the Stryker Brigades in Iraq) I wonder why Australia didn't purchase the TUSK upgrade right away when the light forces are better under most other circumstances.

 

[AGRA]

This type of scenario that you are describing is still aways off from becoming a reality, it has been envisioned by the U.S since the first Persian Gulf War and the only way that it stands a chance is if you can gaurantee total control of the ground and air, also you need the weapons systems with munitions that will ensure first round kill capability. I still have my doubts at the present moment just like I did in the early nineties.

Its perfectly realisable now – just systems like the Stryker MGS have been customised for a fire support role not an anti-tank role, because of the mission of the SBCT. The way the US Army fought OIF is very similar to the concept and they ran into many of the problems A21 identified in experimentation. Total dominance in open terrain but in urban areas enemy force’s remained intact by hiding amongst the local population requiring armour-infantry teams supported by suppressive artillery to go in and destroy them.

The US wants to see how the Stryker Brigades can perform against enemy heavy forces of limited capabilities.
This is essential for a fast deployable force like the Stryker Brigades.
And while those Bigades add needed capabilties which are between the heavy armored/mech inf divisions and the light/airmobile/airborn divisions.

There is no grand strategy behind the US’s deployment of the SBCT – their initial name s very illuminating: the Interim Medium Armoured Vehicle (IMAV). Strykers were seen as a way to bridge between the M1/M2 force and FCS. Because the M1/M2 force remained intact the SBCT was customised towards the infantry role not the tank role. The FCS BCT will be much more of a MGS/Anti-tank heavy force.

So your idea of swarming attacks along the side to get shots there is very optimistical to perform for mainly motorized light infantry which needs to dismount to get the AT-weapons of the brigade to work.

Again, again, again! Look I’ve never said the SBCT as it has emerged now or an ASLAV equipped armd cav regt from Australia is what I’m talking about. This was experimentation based on what should the force structure be? A range of LAV type vehicle based systems – perfectly technically achievable at the moment – organised as a armoured/mechanised infantry brigade is what was used. Not the SBCT as it was rushed into service to provide a fast, networked COIN force.

Kosovo, Korean Peninsula, other balkan areas, Pakistan,...

Would work the same. Iraq is not a desert. It’s a highly complex river system based, relatively heavily vegetated area.

And they have a weather which can deny or severely restrict the use of air power.

So the enemies only defence is weather? Even then while attack helicopters might be grounded the Sensor Fuzed Munition artillery and many ISR assets won’t be.

And when the Australian government purchased the M1A1 AIM only because the light LAV forces were severely restricted in their performance in urban areas (What is surprisingly the main operational area for the Stryker Brigades in Iraq) I wonder why Australia didn't purchase the TUSK upgrade right away when the light forces are better under most other circumstances.

Well many people looked askance at the SBCT after A21, but the US Army isn’t as flexible as the Australians. But the SBCT are not performing medium and high intensity operations. The SBCT did not retake Fallujah – a mechanised USMC force heavily supported by tanks and artillery did so. But attach a M1 battalion to a SBCT and you would have a supreme urban combat force for high intensity operations.

Tanks are needed to support the assaults of infantry in close terrain. This is a very significant Australian experience from fighting the Japanese and VeitNamese in close terrain of a different sort: jungles, of which many lessons apply to urban combat.

Australia purchased M1 tanks straight form the US production line over the past few yeas. We transferred $10 million extra dollars to the FMS account in case any of these batches were slotted to receive TUSK upgrades, none of them were due to US funding delays. TUSK will be acquired very soon, the project Land 907 Phase 2 has already progressed through most of the internal approval process.

 

[Waylander]

Tanks are needed to push through heavily defended positions and to perform mobile defensive operations and while they are used in a supporting role during MOUT operations this is still not their main purpose.

You just cannot always bypass enemy positions an have free movement.
This is my main critic with the concept of a highly networked light force.
You cannot always evade combat.
You cannot always dance around the enemy like you want.
C4ISR assets are no argument for light forces as a heavy force can be equipped with them, too.

This is the reason why FCS is getting bigger and bigger.
They just don't get the firepower, mobility and protection they think is still needed on the battlefields of the future into one chassis.
Because of that they dropped the C130 requirement.
Because of that the FCS family is tracked.

 

[eckherl]

@AGR You do realize that the U.S Army is using the Strykers for urbanized combat inside Iraq and this is the most preferred method that is giving them better results.
@Waylander
A Stryker barely meets the weight requirements for a C130 without special preperations that are done to it and this is not counting the 7 - 8,000lb armor add on package that is designed for it.

I talked to a good friend that is working with training soldiers on the Stryker MGS, he clearly stated that the U.S Army views the Stryker series as a good vehicle for quick reactionary/deployable type scenarios, they are not nor will they be used as a primary means to take on heavy forces, it is just not capable of this type of contact. With that said, we will continue to work on a more compact designed combat vehicle that will be able to with stand and out fight any future opponent that we may have to face into the future, so the projects are still alive and well, we just haven`t been able to achieve that goal.

 

[Waylander]

I thought that only the cage denies the Stryker to fit into a C130. What other modifications have to be done to transport it with a Herc?

 

[eckherl]

I thought that only the cage denies the Stryker to fit into a C130. What other modifications have to be done to transport it with a Herc?

Crew served weapons need dismounting.
Fuel load is at 25%,
Tires are de flated.
And as you have stated, RPG cage comes off.

 

[Waylander]

Thanks for the infos.

So those are rather minor modifications except of the cage.

 

[eckherl]

Thanks for the infos.

So those are rather minor modifications except of the cage.

Correct - after landing it will take 15 - 20 minutes minus the caging or add on armor package.