FutureTank
Banned Member
Didn't they start out with cattle tracking?
FutureTank
Banned Member
Ok, you are talking tactical application, but tactical manoeuvre is generally the least of mech unit's actual employment. Sure this is where all the 'excitement' is, but most of the time is spent moving from engagement to engagement.
There is no way an IFV can maintain tank's manoeuvrability, if only because of tank's ability to negotiate obstacles thank's to it's weight. On the other hand in some terrains an tank won't go where an IFV can. This comes doen to commander's judgement and goals, not speed.
What I'm saying is that to perform together with tanks, IFVs and tanks need to share tactical performance in far wider way, and for a tank, the defining tactical characteristics are armour and long range gunnery, not speed. Acquiring targets at long range and defeating them with first round, and preventing being penetrated by enemy weapons are what define tanks
Yes, this is the basic desing needs for IFV anyway, low or high tech.
Yes, why have armour on IFV?And what is the logic behind "We are not able to withstand ATGMs and tank guns so why should we bother about frontal armor?"?
Why should you than even armor an IFV?.
All you need is to remain invisible to the enemy. Remember, if you can't see 'em, you can't shoot 'em
However, of course some armour is required, if only to protect passengers from the light weapon fire, and artillery fire in particular which is often indiscrimitary.
What I'm saying is that the amount of frontal armour on an IFV required to defeat a tank gun would make the IFV unbalanced, requiring adding of more armour elsewhere. This leads to designs that are more 'light tanks' then IFVs. Bradley is a case in point, being only about 7 ton lighter then the T-55.
But why do you think the enemy will not come without his tanks in the very same way you suggest tanks and infantry shoudl operate?
And why do you suppose the enemy will only target your IFV's frontal armour?
Yes, I struggled with this for a long time, considering which is more important, the initial crew survival, or their ability to continue movement.
Essentially one needs to look at IED/mine attack from the enemy point of view. There are two types of such attacks: a) to deny route movement, b) do destroy route users.
In the first case the minitions are passive, and there is no enemy followup activity, so the damaged vehicle is left to deal with the effects of the attack and casualties if any.
In the second case the area of attack is actively targeted, and the attacked vehicle occupants, injured or not, will come under further attack on detonation. It is therefore imperative for the damaged vehicle to be able to retain ability to manoeuvre out of the enemy field of fire, even if at a crawl.
Australian tactics are not that different. What is different is the operational employment. Australians primarily operate as infantry with very few tanks in support. Nor is there the development that took place in Europe as a result of WW2 and Cold War developments. Sometimes I think the Leopards were only bought because an Army is supposed to have tanks, because for infnatry support a different platform is required, but I can't think of one example in existance that would serve as a model. Maybe a tank with an LP 155mm weapon?
Yeah I am talking of tactical situations. And don't tell me that the performance in these tactical situations is not important. You are talking of obstacles. Situations where an IFV is not able to overcome an bstacle are much more rare than situations where IFVs give problems to the whole groupe because of them bing not able to cope with the speed of MBTs and vice versa. And speed is an important part of MBT as well as IFV development.
There are enough IFVs out there which do not have this ability and armor is the only possibility to achieve this.
And again I tell you that I never said something about making an IFV invulnrerble to heavy tank guns and IFVs.
And there are just enough situations where "If he does not see me he can't shoot me" does not function. For example during ambushes, scout missions, being the leading element, etc. There only armor saves you.
I never said this. But by making an IFV able to withstand enemy IFV fire frontally you eliminate a high percentage of threats to your force. The priority during combined arms battles remain that tanks attack tanks and IFVs atack IFVs. When no enemy tank is left or there is no good shot at an enemy ank than your own tanks begin to attack enemy IFVs.
Why should an enemy do not target your frontal armor? Do you drive against the enemy with your back leading the way? The percentage of possible hits is just the biggest in teh frontal area due to the fact that most engagements happen head on or turn to be head on very fast.
Modern tactics always plan with security forces at minefields. Without security force which is able to protect the mindefield it is not very usefull due to modern combat engineer abilities.
So a force hitting a minefield is normally always actively targeted.
That is no argument. I kno that Australia relies mostly on infantry but there approach to combined arms is the same.
Mounted mech inf has the same goals and needs the same abilities like in Europe or the US.
Last edited by a moderator:
FutureTank
Banned Member
Ok, Waylander. Most of my information about tactics of mechanized forces is based on English language correspondence and reading.
So far as Europe is concerned, I have the impression that speed is required in two different types of movements.
At the tactical level, BURST of speed is required to move between cover or close on an objective over short distances of 3-800 metres.
The other ‘need for speed’ is when conducting longer road marches, commonly 5-20km. With the later, the road march speed is usually maintained to about 60km/h and both tanks, IFVs and other vehicles can participate.
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.
Can Puma provide better ride for its passengers at higher speeds?
Maybe it can, but the difference between 35km/h and 45km/h is not significant so far as the vehicle being targeted is concerned.
It seems to me then that there isn’t a need for much higher speeds then currently available.
This is also true for wheeled vehicles which, although commonly claiming top road speeds of 100km/h or more, are not in general faster cross country then the tracked vehicles.
The issue is therefore not speed, but suspension.
Do you have any suggestions for improving IFV suspension for a better ride?
The above applies to Australia also. Although ASLAVs are able to go quite fast over some terrains, in general they are also required to slow down off-road to about 40km/h if the surface is right.
FutureTank
Banned Member
not more armour
There needs to be a better way of acquiring enemy targets, not heaping more weight onto the IFV-type vehicles.
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.
every UD is operater error. It just seems that operater errors are much ,much easier with styer. I served from `85 untill 94, and saw only 1 UD prior to the intro of the styer. Then on one Kapyong day,(just after intro of F88) heard about 10! Cook offs did happen, i can assure you. Maybe it was the blanks we were using....cant remember if there were any with live ammo, cant recall. At one stage, we imported a heap of ex- Isreali 5.56. Would have been 1991. We had a prob, that when we chambered a round, the projectile would push back into,and spead the neck of the caseing.(m193 rds with M16A1,s) This was pretty common, and very annoying. I guess thats what happens when someone buys someone elses rejects at a bargain!
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
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
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.
One illustration of this is the video on youtube found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUnaHXok2TM
At approximately the 1:00 mark you can see a stoppage cleared with commendable speed.
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.
One illustration of this is the video on youtube found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUnaHXok2TM
At approximately the 1:00 mark you can see a stoppage cleared with commendable speed.
yep, i know what you mean, the plastic blanks wernt to bad with the slr,but made it very,very dirty! Sometimes you would get one that would bend,and do the old cock,lock look,mag off and clear it. With the Styer, the blanks are brass and a bit shorter than a live ss109. so there not bad either. Also come in 15rd speed loading clips that are great!( as does live ammo)
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.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?
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!).
Here's an article about it from March 2004 from the Army Newspaper:
http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1093/topstories/story10.htm
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.
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.
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.