I feel Tanks are no longer useful, but Russia's most advanced Tank

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
Its the best FSU tank and thus a considerable threat to western tanks. The Russians dont just spend their time drinking vodka and enjoying nights on the Volga. Their own brand of armor design is perfectly effective.
alright true its a threat to a western tank but not like the us is gonna go M1A2 tank vs T 80 tank an apache or other aatack helicopter will slaughter it from 5+ miles away no contest a tanks cannon cant fire that far only about 800 meters or so plus the apache isnt the only one that cancaary the hellifre the predator can 2 and those fly higher in the air andhave powerful cameras for surveillance and dont forget they're unmanned and quite cheap and plus a bunch of predators vs M 80's = predators winning no contest www.gruntsmilitary.com...




posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Char2c35t
I dont think tank or at least the class of vehiclle role is obsolete far from it, there wont be a replacement of the role of the tank the tank will evolve. Shealth, armour, weapons, and communication equipment will al evolve new drive and powerplants will and are being developed that will be hybrid or completely electic making them harder to detect.

visaul stealth and heat sheilding will be the next steps, but the need for heavy armour that is able to servive and return fire is still there.

heavy armour might be 50 tons vs 70 tons in the future due to break threws but it will still fit the heavy armour role.
um.i dont think so because no matter what anti armor technology is considerably past armor technology and if armor technology that good is developed it will be way too heavy tanks use turbine engines and they kick off quite a heat signature an apache has infra red sensors and besides camouflauge willbe a bigger part of tanks not heavy armor because by then there will be so many types of weapons that can destroy an armored tank that they'll be obsolete visual stealth, electric engines9 less heat signature), radar deflection etc will be the way to go i mean a hellfire is a 17 pound warhead imagine what a 100 pound warhead with a more powerful explosive can do explosive can do? true they will be armored but in the future they will be less armored so they can move a lot faster


[edit on 15-2-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   
The T-90's Dazzler system is said to highly reduce probability of ATGW (hellfire included) hit by as much as 50%. And they are always enhancing the electronics on their armor coupled with 2nd Gen ERA. Chinese tanks also carry inferior but present Dazzler systems.

Russian armor is focusing on light ERA passive defense and active Dazzler and warning systems instead of heavy armor to blunt ATGWs. This is something the west has not really done... Most of our tanks rely on the "super Chobham" armor instead of lighter systems. Thus our tanks still weight 60-70 tons, while Russian tanks have similiar protection at 40-50 tons and carry the same gun.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Paddyinf,

>>
The side armour of the wiesel can be penetrated by 12.7mm ball, and there have been cases of 7.62AP punching a few holes in one. OK there wouldn't be much power left in the round after this, but it would be a bit disconcerting for the occupants! Front armour is documented to stop up to 20mm cannon. I'll believe it when I see it.
>>

Take the man out. And the _weight_ of armor needed to enclose his volume-as-a-hollow goes down. So too can the effective _thickness_ of it increased as a function of both slope and layering.

Multiply the number of units by 6 so that (6 Wiesel-likes vs. 1 M1A2) and start MOVING them at 60-70mph.

Now employ smart smoke and perhaps APS/ERA packages. For a vehicle that is still well under 10 tons, you have the capability to put your MANEUVER forces out in totally unattached positions. Let the enemy flow into your positions. Let them /think/ they are advancing deep into and through the cells of an ALB2000 defense.

And then BUTCHER THEM. With light cannons and HVM. Which will certainly kill a Wiesel-like. But will also annihilate an MBT threat.

Except. The MBT costs 3-6 times what the Wiesel-like does. And so, even if you score 2:1 LER there will still be more Wiesels standing at the end of the fight than the beginning.

THAT is the definition of victory sir, where the bullets (fired) matter more than the rifle in terms of destructive lethality, you can only use maneuver to hit where they don't expect you to (from behind, ensuring at least first-round impacts) and NUMBERS to ensure that you can afford to lose more than they can.

>>
Ch1466, probably the real reason we do not see vehicles like the ones you describe are probably because of teh technological hurtles that are in place. The Russians are said to have difficultly automating a turret in a tank that has crew right there. Having troops command a robot tank (Becuase if you even suggest AI, you've lost the battle) would be to open the playing field for massive communication disruption, rendering all units, not just one, useless.
>>

The Russians are trying to ram a 125mm round into a breach and tube that weighs more than you car does. Which is why, at least on the T-72 and earlier, they have a slower cycle due to the need to put the gun in neutral battery to line everything up.

A Bradley (or a Weisel) with a LIGHT CANNON is no more apt to jam than handgun is and at least in the case of the Chain Gun is quite capable of self-clearing.

The only other concern is targeting/allocation of fires and /even if/ you have to have a manned sort function, there is NO reason why 1-3 Wiesels couldn't be supporting the actual engagement with direct or masted sensor systems.

That only leaves the need for a variable centroid recognition system which says "Right there is where you need to track because X is a T-72 and that is it's weak spot..." Again, we've had this capability inherent to ATC on LANTIRN and intra-target aimpoint selection on AGM-65F/G for 'awhile now'.

If the targeting pod can recognize the shape of a vehicle from 10-12 miles out. And the missile can select and track an aimpoint within that shape _on a throwaway basis_. Don't BS me about how a robot cannot manage the same endeavor.

>>
I hate to use this fantasy example, but remember that droid army in Star Wars? Same concept, except jamming can be done locally.
>>

Nonsense. The concept behind TPM was that signals from a remote tasking/BM agency, when lost, caused the entire robotic army to go into 'default mode'. Which is fine and dandy when:

1. There are no standing mission orders in place.
Go to X, destroy all resistance enroute.
2. There is no 'active combat' condition.
If someone is shooting at you at the time you lose connectivity, shoot back until safe.
3. The 'Officer Class' doesn't have _local_ command authority inherent to the ability to act as a miniserver and node agent.
4. You realize that the droids in question should have _already_ been isolated from all outside contact by virtue of standing inside an energy dome of sufficient, constant, density to refract light and deflect tank blasts.

All moronic baseline mistakes which no _professional_ army would make. And which indeed were shown to be such in AOTC when (in the deleted scenes) a Jedi strike team breached the droid command carrier and shut down the combat network. Only to have the droids 'reactivate', based on simple if-then conditional ethics.

Face it, we cannot get by without digital communications on today's battlefield to compensate for _human_ shortcomings. A droid tank, which does not have said slow reaction times, limited numbers and mobility and poor air-mech /transportability/ (choose your battlefield, if need be, several times) would not suffer as much as we would.

>>
If your going for totally expendable, purely ATGW holders, why not simply use attack helicopters or UAVs?
>>

Because I want to decrease the ruinous cost at low effective yield that our armed forces expend on warfighting capability without any of the rewards of /ownership/ resulting from victory.

Because helicopters and UAVs not only cannot hold ground but may not be able to hold the sky once DEWS and Hunting (Turbo-SAM) weapons proliferate as cheap alternatives to 'fighters'.

Because battles are won by the 10% killer elite who /enjoy/ their jobs and cajole through embarrassment, envy or contagious battle lust, their fellows into combat. Man cannot do this on a battlefield dominated by high rate of fire and/or remote assassin weapons. Robots can. Because they are fearless and replaceable.

>>
Your robotic unit has no other use. It has no use against infantry, and to think of it, is terribly vulerable to even lighty armed infantry.
>>

Nonsense. If it can kill a tank, it can kill any system of lesser capability than a tank. The LM CKEM link I included shows the ATGW mounted on a 'MULE' _in addition to_ a light caliber cannon. A cannon which is /vastly/ superior to main tube for killing personnel threats because not only is the servicing rate, ammo capacity and stepped fragmentation overlap much more dense and controllable. But you are not loosing a weapon which goes through three houses over half a mile downrange.

>>
Why not fight the war from the air as we figured we could do back in the good old days of the Cold War. Smart bombs will be the end of the army right?
>>

In 2015, the THEL will enter field trials. From that date forward, penetrating/overhead airpower will be living on borrowed time and a random toss of the dice in terms of 'Do you run over a threat at /low/ altitude which can kill you. Or do you get thru to the target area?'

As such airpower, like ground power will be useful only to the extent that you can afford to lose them in droves.

And even though a UCAV is infinitely cheaper than a manned fighter with HUGE edges in LO and Endurance, you can buy upwards of four MBT for each A-45.

Lastly, mini-AFV which are /everywhere/ acting as an imbedded netcentric surveillance system with absolutely NO troops onboard to hostage. Can intimidate a rebel-mindset on the basis of "Maybe I get it, maybe I don't but it was never alive to begin with, I have more to lose..." Something which is critical when you are facing a fire-and-fade threat.

>>
Missiles malfunction. Sensors get dazzled. Communications get cut.
>>

Yet you don't seem to apply the same standard of 'woe is me I'm CM'd!' jaded cynicism to manned platforms, why is that?

Missiles malfunction. Ours less than ANYONE elses.

Sensors get dazzled. If a _properly designed_ CKEM were fielded. One which could do both NLOS and LOS fires, the ability of the missile to be 'dazzled' (which typically implies laser attack on an optical seeker or SACLOS channel) would be strictly dependent on how long the target knew it was under attack. And whether said target was in fact being tracked by an EO post it could reach out and interfere with. If the sensor is a masted MMW sensor in 'area surveillance' mode, and the CKEM uses a characterizing smart-fuze which operates for /milliseconds/ at the end of the flight path, would you advise equipping all tanks with a jammer that made them both more pricey and subject to ARM attack? Remember, this is a missile which is closing at almost 2km/sec. If you are static, you may not have time to hit the gas pedal and the round will hit on nothing more than inertial memory. If you are moving your derriere is open to whatever moves in /after/ you have passed.

The fact of the matter is that you want to make 99.999% of our enemies as electronically sophisticated as we are yet _even if that were to become the standard_ it only makes OUR platforms as vulnerable to precision fires as theirs already are. It being much more pragmatic to kill the shooter than the arrow.

And so the question again devolves to: 'Can we afford to trade MBT evenly based on sheer combat dynamic encounter modes?' Or is it _time_ to look at robots as the way to further 'densify' the match-this electronics sophistication of mini-BOLOs while at the same time REDUCING costs and mulitiplying the amount of attrition we can suffer and still win. Based on the wealth and production lines to buy more than rinky-dink city state we decide to roll over.

>>
Surprises occur. To be honest, if I was combat effective, intelligent, reliable armor units, I want men in it. You might say its "honorable stupidity" but crews are far more flexible and smarter than any droid...
>>

Despite all the Hollyweird convolutions of logic we go through to make it seem otherwise, 'complex reasoning' rarely applies on the battlefield. You point, you click. Because the human mind is too slow to do more and the human sensory system is restricted to what /machine apertures/ tell it is out there.

Part of what makes Iraq so frustrating to most is the constant in-your-face
revisionment of a battlefield in which IED assassination wins and people are alive one second and dead the next. It takes away the 'Jedi Knight' sense of humans having any real effect on the outcome of a fight.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that 'smart' tacticians /need/ robots because:

1. They can be in more places, with less supporting fire/force protection enablement than man can. Providing more options to explore, shape and exploit the battlefield than value-dense maneuver columns based around manned presence can achieve.

2. Their sacrificiality is an element of creating dynamic instability which a good 'in fighter' can esupport. Banzai charges /never/ worked. Unless they were allowed to. Because men firing 1-2 rounds from a bolt action rifle while being led by officers with swords. They got a /little/ scarier when junior was carrying a satchel on his pack but not much, provided you chose your fields of fire with care to create a wide killing zone.
OTOH, _every_ Wiesel-like can employ autofire with equal or greater accuracy than an MBT /on the move/. And, and unlike an infantryman, it can move at rates of speed with reserve payload margin for _simple_ countermeasures (like smart smoke) which make conventional counter engagement (with LAW or Mines) unlikely to score because of the very inadequacy of the biology aiming them.
If the Japanese had been using UGV in their banzai charges, even against sited heavy MG and RCL/Bazooka type defense, it would have been the _U.S._ lines which were shattered.
The sadness being that, because of the limits of biology on payload and rate of onset in assault, infantry combat has not really advanced much past the days of WWII.

It is time we stopped pretending: _MAN HAS NO PLACE ON THE BATTLEFIELD_.

In a vehicle he merely compromises it's design. On his own, he stultifies the tactics of engagement to the point where more damage is done in 'reducing' a target than in overrunning it.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
>>
The T-90's Dazzler system is said to highly reduce probability of ATGW (hellfire included) hit by as much as 50%.
>>

Does the Dazzler work on Longbow or Brimstone Hellfires?

Does the Dazzler work on /2/ such missiles as well as one? What about missiles fired from different compass points?

If you pop a can of SFW over tank, can it 'dazzle' all 40 odd submunitions before they fire a 9,000fps SFF through the roof?

What about 4 such munitions in an Excalibur round?

Can a 'dazzler' defeat an AMSTE guided GBU-39 which literally plays Pin The Tail On The Donkey using radar data from a fighter or JSTARS or RQ-4 type platform?

Gee, thanks, but I would as soon employ the mortar systems to mask the tank with smart smoke. Or an APS to get a mechanical intercept. As rely on a single-spectrum ability to defeat ATGW.

And I would rather have 6:1 numeric increase over conventional MBT to _my_ being targeted. If only because I can send half those other-five vehicles out in a big envelopement and know that the AH-64 or F-whatever will not be able to kill us all _that_ mission.

During which I can close with my objective and perhaps get under cover.

>>
Most of our tanks rely on the "super Chobham" armor instead of lighter systems. Thus our tanks still weight 60-70 tons, while Russian tanks have similiar protection at 40-50 tons and carry the same gun.
>>

Agreed. There is no reason not to incorporate alternative defense packages to bring weight down and get transportability up. _So Long As_ you are not fighting on a shared LOS horizon with a maintube threat that cannot be staved off by anything BUT heavy armor.

The difference being that if you reduce to the Soviet/Chinese level of mid-weight MBTs; you are still not really doing much to defeat and innate numeric advantage that they /already/ have (being 'there', on the pan-Asian continental mass, to begin with).

Right now, we use airpower to offset this with preattrition and maneuver choke interdiction.

In future wars, such may not be as ready a solution and so you _still_ have to say "Okay, what can I do to do /them/ one better?"

Right now, that means giving up the phallic obsession with main tube weapons and accepting that '4 simultaneous hyper velocity missiles later'. You will either have won the engagment or made a terrible mistake in engaging such a numerically large threat force as can withstand your (8-10 minitanks in a platoon or troop X 4 missiles per vehicle X .8 SSPK = 32 kills right off the bat).

Never underestimate the incredible leverage simple numbers can give you. If they are 'cheap enough' to be thrown aways as fast as the Russian/Chinese model wastes lives. That is still our principle advantage over them you know. We value life more. And so will do whatever it takes to _avoid_ attrition based slugging matches between symmetrical forces.

THAT is what we are headed for. With MBT vs. MBT warfare in an era of similar penetration and shared-LOS horizons.


KPl.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 06:44 AM
link   
i am sick and tired of ch1466 going on about how great our army is the very county that robbed and pilliged germany after the ww2 the same county that did not know what a rocket for that matter a missile looked like. the same people told verner von brunen that if he did not tell them how to make missiles they would make up charges about war crimes . the great satan with all its hi tech weapons have failed to make israel safe and get control of iraqs oil reserves but their crimes are not over yet they want irans oil we just better hope with the great advanese in iranian weapons that iran can hold them off for the sake of mankind cause if they dont where will it end theirs talk of the neocons defending taiwan and the neocons telling taiwan to declaire independance if that happens were finished.



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 08:31 AM
link   
BOSNIAWARRIOR :

you may be advised to look up who parsons and goddard were before making further sweeping pronouncements


to edade the ban on one line sarcastic posts , here is a the on line bio articles :

Goddard

pay note to " inventor of liquid fuel rockets " in goddards write up


i hant time to find a fitting bio for parsons , but the book review of sex and rockets , here will suffice for now

ape out /



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
The T-90's Dazzler system is said to highly reduce probability of ATGW (hellfire included) hit by as much as 50%. And they are always enhancing the electronics on their armor coupled with 2nd Gen ERA. Chinese tanks also carry inferior but present Dazzler systems.

Russian armor is focusing on light ERA passive defense and active Dazzler and warning systems instead of heavy armor to blunt ATGWs. This is something the west has not really done... Most of our tanks rely on the "super Chobham" armor instead of lighter systems. Thus our tanks still weight 60-70 tons, while Russian tanks have similiar protection at 40-50 tons and carry the same gun.


ok can it fool multiple guidance systems wat about TOW wire guided anti tank missiles u noe the hellfire 2 has m,any diff seekers milliimeter wave semi active laser and imaging infra red and the brimstone has advanced technoloy seekers such as an advanced milimeter wave radars now tell me can the tank defect radar like a stealth plane and even if it could have u heard of silent sentry? it uses fm tv and hdtv signals to detect targets ground sea and air! accurately www.boeing.com...
www.lockheedmartin.com...
www.lockheedmartin.com...
www.lockheedmartin.com...

fm waves and i think tv and hdtv ones hug the earth allowing targets of all fonteirs lad sea and space and plus look at my 3rd link its says its designed for advanced 21st century threats ( armor and countermeasures) It can operate in sever electro optical countermeasure environments it is highly counter measure resistance against advanced threats and anyway those countermeasures aren't 100% reliable and the hellfire can bypass countermeasures



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
besides dont ut think the develops of the hellfire was considering sophisticated countermeasures and anywayz can it foola WCMD using anti armor subminitions or a MLRS rocket's submunitions can it stop an unguided rocket froma rocket launcher at close range think about it urban warfare its basically hell for tanks



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
and o yea dont forget a vehicle with a 20 mm vulcan gun can destroy heavy armor hahah not only are there anti armor missiles but bullets a plane with a vulcan can fly at an altittude far above the tank and blast it



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bosnianwarrior
i am sick and tired of ch1466 going on about how great our army is the very county that robbed and pilliged germany after the ww2 the same county that did not know what a rocket for that matter a missile looked like. the same people told verner von brunen that if he did not tell them how to make missiles they would make up charges about war crimes . the great satan with all its hi tech weapons have failed to make israel safe and get control of iraqs oil reserves but their crimes are not over yet they want irans oil we just better hope with the great advanese in iranian weapons that iran can hold them off for the sake of mankind cause if they dont where will it end theirs talk of the neocons defending taiwan and the neocons telling taiwan to declaire independance if that happens were finished.


dude no need to get personal that's bush 's idea not the citizens i agree partially with u bush is a pathetic president but they dont come buy often and can u prove we went after the oil it was either an intelligence meltdown or bush cherrypicked intelligence ive heard about both of em so many times dont be jealous man a lotta people hate on american no need be jealous plus now we have sum pretty kick ass missiles no and anywayz u sed we robbed g germany? we rebuilt europe go recheck ur info we're a helpful nation in times of war we airlift food to afghanis and iraquis during the wars to feed the poor people and anyways go read actual intelligence news iran does have nuclear progrmas ( not necessarily missiles but close to it) and also they are developing enriched uranium not like we should go 2 war with em but u foreign people really gotta stop making stupid assumtions about us



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
are u pro tank people gonna make a reply now looks like the T 80 isnt wat it wuz cracked up 2 be



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   
We will see armor as a backup on the battlefield at least until the next major war between the major powers. The tactical essentials of armor - firepower, protection and mobility - will have to be taken over by other platforms. In the future every observed target on the battlefield will find itself threatened by NLOS-PGM-weapons. Large armored combined arms attacks will not feature largely in any such conflict. They would be destroyed by indirect PGM-fire without having a chance to fight back. Anyone with a pair of binos, a laser range finder and a GPS-system can radio the exact location of the enemy realtime back to artillery/rockets/mortars which would destroy the targets from ranges beyond the reach of amoured units. Future armored vehicles are likely to be small, speedy and stealthy. Electric armor, close in defence systems and blue/red force trackers will be standard. There will be no need to build 70 ton tracked mosters when 20 to 30 ton vehicles (you need some armor to withstand whats left of incoming ATGM and KE-APFSDS-rounds destroyed by active close in defence systems) will do the job. And yes, there will be some armored vehicles with LOS-weapons too (railguns?). But they will not dominate the battlefield. Its a hard but simple truth. Look around the world. Do you see anyone imvesting billions and billions in new tanks? So don't be romantic. A generation ahead we will see todays armor inside the museums. I don't know if helicopters with human pilots and jets will face the same fate. Just imagine joystick controlled small choppers with PGM and chain guns. Or small UAVs able to conduct combat missions without autonomously.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Though that is virtually the same point that Ch1466, rather long windedly pointed out, is that "proper" tanks can be replaced by smaller, lighter units. However, once again, where do you draw the line between having electric defense and having brute armor. APCs made of aluminun are often tackled by .30 MG's firing AP ammo. Your vehicle should be more resistant than that, but what about enemy units employing larger munitions, like 20mm guns, mines, etc.

I see no problem with using developing electric defense and active intercepting systems, as well as jamming and dazzler units, in ADDITION to brute composite armor. It might be heavier, it might be more costly, but will save your vehicle from that RPG your computer didnt see until it was too late.

What would you rather be in?

The 70 ton brute armor beast with electronic defense,
or a 20 ton lightly armored IFV with electronic defense, but also have a second vehicle to return fire when you take one hit and die, cause without brute armor, all that is keeping you alive is a computer.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
good idea i think that tanks no matter what are still easily destroyed by a modern military but in the future tanks will be faster, have adabptive camouflague, stealth tech, rail guns, missiles instead of guns etc however helicopters and UaVS will always be a few steps ahead for example the preadator is being upgraded with AMRAAMS for self defense against fihter jets sofor example if u tried bringing your own attack helicopter or gunship my predator can launch an amraam if fighter jets aren't in range for aerial attack


[edit on 19-2-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raideur
Though that is virtually the same point that Ch1466, rather long windedly pointed out, is that "proper" tanks can be replaced by smaller, lighter units. However, once again, where do you draw the line between having electric defense and having brute armor. APCs made of aluminun are often tackled by .30 MG's firing AP ammo. Your vehicle should be more resistant than that, but what about enemy units employing larger munitions, like 20mm guns, mines, etc.

I see no problem with using developing electric defense and active intercepting systems, as well as jamming and dazzler units, in ADDITION to brute composite armor. It might be heavier, it might be more costly, but will save your vehicle from that RPG your computer didnt see until it was too late.

What would you rather be in?

The 70 ton brute armor beast with electronic defense,
or a 20 ton lightly armored IFV with electronic defense, but also have a second vehicle to return fire when you take one hit and die, cause without brute armor, all that is keeping you alive is a computer.

I think what the Americans, especially, are trying to develop is a more mobile force. Currently, it takes weeks to prepare, load up and deploy heavy armour (MBT's, heavy artillary and engineering equipment), via ship and air to, say, places like the Middle East and Asia.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 04:32 AM
link   
Raideur,

>>
However, once again, where do you draw the line between having electric defense and having brute armor.
>>

The line has already /been/ drawn. When a LOSAT went in the front slope and out the back engine grill of an M1A2 'with all the addon extras'. And Shaliksvelli held up his hand and waved a 'Jaded' video tape under the noses of the Armor Folks as he said:

"I will let you pretend, so long as you realized I can SMASH your dreams whenever I want. You in turn will give me Stryker/SBCT/IBCT"

We will never see that video. But it does exist.

The sadness being that the LOSAT program was itself a casualty of the war. So that the /mechanization/ behind which 'small tanks kill big ones just fine' is lost.

And all's we are left with is '2 birds in the bush' in the form of the Mule and CKEM.

Neither of which the Army will buy. Because Corporals Command Robots. Generals 'lead' men.

>>
APCs made of aluminun are often tackled by .30 MG's firing AP ammo. Your vehicle should be more resistant than that, but what about enemy units employing larger munitions, like 20mm guns, mines, etc.
>>

Fine. Make a 40 ton IFV and stuff 5 men in it. Myself, the only role of infantry is to secure the local surrounds (ambush, mine, sniper) for the mechanized force which sends assets forward (albeit perhaps Tamiya RC car sized) to reconnoiter and obliterate with point fires the kinds of man+RPG or RPK idiocy ONLY YOU say we must face head on.

Man has no place on the modern battlefield. The notion of honor by presence is a false psychology that just makes his easy-kill a coup-based encouragement to the barbarian mindset of 'so little to lose'. And one of furter humiliation and hurt to the 'more sophisticated animal' which sent their young soldier on some more crusade to establish /their/ notion of righteousness.

>>
I see no problem with using developing electric defense and active intercepting systems, as well as jamming and dazzler units, in ADDITION to brute composite armor. It might be heavier, it might be more costly, but will save your vehicle from that RPG your computer didnt see until it was too late.
>>

Snort.

(Best Pat Morita Immitation)

You no wanna die? Don't be /shot at/. You no wanna -lose- don't so value-vest yourself in irretrievably 'exposed' assets as to risk everything on he few rather than the many.

The Few works when everyone's a combat retard. The Many works when guided missiles make each engagement a munition defeat vs. platform kill _sure hit thing_.

>>
What would you rather be in?
>>

An RSTV pulling a Netfires CLU trailer. 60-80km back. Period. Dot.

>>
The 70 ton brute armor beast with electronic defense,
>>

90-120 days later, we arrive with all 10 of our ROROs hefting one division worth of baseline logistics for '30 days of combat'. And the enemy is dug in like ticks on an Arkansas hog when 'suddenly' the surrounding five nations all declare their APOD/SPOD facilities _closed_.

>>
Or a 20 ton lightly armored IFV with electronic defense, but also have a second vehicle to return fire when you take one hit and die, cause without brute armor, all that is keeping you alive is a computer.
>>

A computer is all that keeps a mighty muchacho fighter puke alive. Why should a lowly grunt get to be more picky?

OTOH, what you RESOUNDINGLY FAIL TO ACKNOWLEDGE. Is that if the cav screen is armed with robots that can kill anything AND retain combat effectiveness after losses. Then the 'manned force' behind them is _never at risk_. Even if they are all riding in Brads, Strykers and Humvees.

YOUR system however puts the cav screen /with men aboard/ at equal risk to the proliferated technology of their own vehicles.

While having the van-force 'riding shotgun' on imbedded CS/CSS units which _have to be there_ or the tanks will not be able to sustain rate of march so much as pace of combat.

CONCLUSION:
Your contact force exists SOLELY to find the enemy irrespective of C3D. By rolling over him. THAT is manever. THAT is shock.

But the basics of firepower:

Shoot, Shoot, Shoot!
(More rounds in the first onset of fire determines who dies vs. _any_ armor or CM based SSPK value)
Mass Fires Not Forces
(Standoff maximizes the number of engagement periods i.e. reload, sort and shoot again, before you forces become 'mixed' or 'commited' to LOS combat)
Maneuver To Target Not Engage
(Emphasizing the importance of battlespace awareness over direct combat and the coordination of force elements -as- fire discipline/focus.)
Always keep your Fires Separate from your Targeting
(Cheap is as cheap does but the man who is rich enough to be able to lose more _wins_.)

All support a throwaway battlefield force more than a manned-intensive one.

OUR problem is that we secretly /all/ have a knight complex which is to say the worship of as much as desire to be Ye Perfect Warrior.

There is no such thing. And now that automation is here, the Russkian/Chicom approach to Ant Warfare may well be the better 'buy the numbers' solution.

As expeditionarists, our problem then becomes GETTING THAR. If not fustest then at least /soon enough/ that we are not left playing MacArthur or Normandy games against an imbedded opfor that has had all the time it needs to prep a very dense, interlocked, FIREPOWER LAWS based equivalent.

Even ants can still play cavalry. But only until they face an Orkin enemy with a big firehose.

The key then is to make your antfarm portably compact. And -just- fires intense enough, to stuff an effective combat force into the back of 50-100 C-17s (vice one LHA).


KPl.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
The line has already /been/ drawn. When a LOSAT went in the front slope and out the back engine grill of an M1A2 'with all the addon extras'. And Shaliksvelli held up his hand and waved a 'Jaded' video tape under the noses of the Armor Folks as he said:

"I will let you pretend, so long as you realized I can SMASH your dreams whenever I want. You in turn will give me Stryker/SBCT/IBCT"

We will never see that video. But it does exist.


A LOSAT was used against an M1 ? Just where did you here this and where did your quotes come from ?



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:42 AM
link   
this palce is getting confusing lets go back to the basics



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by ch1466
The line has already /been/ drawn. When a LOSAT went in the front slope and out the back engine grill of an M1A2 'with all the addon extras'. And Shaliksvelli held up his hand and waved a 'Jaded' video tape under the noses of the Armor Folks as he said:

"I will let you pretend, so long as you realized I can SMASH your dreams whenever I want. You in turn will give me Stryker/SBCT/IBCT"

We will never see that video. But it does exist.


A LOSAT was used against an M1 ? Just where did you here this and where did your quotes come from ?


They've apparently tested the LOSAT platform against sitting T-72s and M60s, but not against an M1A2.

Weapons systems like the LOSAT (and the increasing number of sophisticated and intelligent anti-tank missile systems) will, i believe, in any future conflict between the major powers, result in the multiplication of force wielded by the average grunt on the ground, at the expense of most types of amour; hence the need to develop lighter, faster and intelligently-networked armoured weapon's systems.



  exclusive video


new topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join