posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 02:58 PM
Originally posted by fritz
Heavily armoured vehicles will still be needed in modern warfare, when fighting a conventional war, even if NBC weapons are introduced to the
battlefield and especially more so, because of the overpressure systems on board that allow the crew to continue to operate in a contaminated
The reason for armor is basically to absorb the tactical initiative your going up against when you expose yourself during assault/maneuver and it
really is very expensive and unwieldy substitute for initiative derived from camouflage/longer range weapons/better aimed fires and so forth. The
German high command ( and by this i mean Hitler) fascination with massively armored tanks and assault guns helped hurry on defeat like few other
things. Even back in 1942 German generals were in favour of simply copying a few T-34 ideas and running with that as big guns and armor matters little
when the infantry you base your maneuvers on gets stuck/smashed for lack of mobile support.
Infantry Fighting Vehicles on the other hand, need to have their armour drastically upgraded and should be able to withstand both ATGW and the
next generation of RPGs.
I think the whole IFV idea is wrong to start with ( beside in few cases like airborne/parachute or as part of armored divisions , and this is all
assuming preparation for high intensity conflict versus symmetric forces) and i like the idea of vastly faster battle taxis ( shell splinters and
MAYBE 12.5 mm) all round) with anti tank weapons all being part of the dismount team. I do NOT want my APC drivers/commanders getting ideas about
shoot outs with tanks and some such thus risking their mobility and whatever use they are in mobile warfare.
In my view the modern Main Battle Tank is a must for any armed forces.
Actually they are only useful ,imo, when you tend to invade others or pretend that you may if they push you 'too far'. I would rather have my
infantry being able to defend themselves with AT weapons in abundance than have a few 60 ton monsters rushing around trying to plug holes. What makes
more sense is to blunt enemy heavy armor attacks with massed infantry based anti tank weaponry ( which should be able to double as anti personal
weapons and carried in that quantities by the APC which now has space for such things) with even M-10 wolverine type systems to rush around the rear
and isolate and crush penetrations by ambush and shear speed.
It has mobility, is protected from most ATGW/RPG and has a reasonabl turn of speed. The crew has the ability to deliver accurate anti tank and
anti-personnel fire at longer ranges with first round/first kill capability.
Trying to do that while carrying infantry is just asking to get people killed pointlessly the Merkava notwithstanding.
Merkava's get destroyed
just like anything else but if you can not afford to lose lives maybe you have a half decent excuse for building such a monster which might very well
result in the death of 11 men when things go wrong enough, which it quite unlikely.
Fact is you can almost never defend the battles/carry space for
10 dismounts ( the 6 man squad is SUCH a bad idea imo) with the type of armor that will protect you from main gun rounds or even many modern anti tank
missiles without giving up the speed and range that makes a battle taxi worth it.
Tank forces will take any terrain - even in mountainous regions, but it is the PBI that will hold it - and they need more heavily protected
carriers/fightingvehicles if they are to keep up with the tanks.
And i agree that infantry needs support but in the form of very effective transport that can carry them and plenty of ammunition of all kinds in great
volumes wherever very fast. Getting your means of transport shot up means you lose you effective means of resupply and transport and that's just very
bad when everyone else can manage it.