What is a tank? (split from Scorpions thread)

[easyrider]

Same difference. Their role in the DF is mostly for training. To get troops used to the idea of operating with "Tanks" and other tracked AFVs.(Note, The Scorpion CRV(T) is not a tank.

Well if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and looks like a duck (albeit a little duck), seems reasonable to say "It's a duck!"

For example, this is a well-known WW2 light tank,



(Just because the Brits had a problem with tank numbers and the CFE treaty, doesn't mean we have muck around with the language too.)

[Fireplace]

Well if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and looks like a duck (albeit a little duck), seems reasonable to say "It's a duck!"

So everything would alright then as long as it ever only came up against other little ducks.

[hptmurphy]

So it's just the bare minimum to maintain the status quo

if these go diesel we will also require diesel motorbikes and lawnmowers.


These vehicles are the last major petrol guzzlers in the army.

Worth considering tha a Scorpion holds the worlds fastest tracked vehicle record timed at the Nuremburgring by the british army in the 1980s, witha bit of tweaking it got up to 80mph

[Orion]

1. http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/search.php
2. Next to the letter z on your keyboard is a useful little button(not x, the other side). The same button can be found next to the / Please use it.
3. When you have mastered using that button, you can move onto using other wonderful keyboard features, such as:;'?!" and ,

It'll make me happier, and I won't be on your case as much. Irish Military Online encourages the use of proper punctuation.

I know I'll be sanctioned for this but ........

"Next to the letter z on your keyboard is a useful little button(not x, the other side). " I assume you mean \ ?

"The same button can be found next to the /" Not on my keyboard.

When you say next to, do you mean adjacent to, as in above, below, to one side or the other? Or do you really mean beside, either to the left or the right?

"as much" Surely ... so much.

[womble]

I know I'll be sanctioned for this but ........

"Next to the letter z on your keyboard is a useful little button(not x, the other side). " I assume you mean \ ?

"The same button can be found next to the /" Not on my keyboard.

When you say next to, do you mean adjacent to, as in above, below, to one side or the other? Or do you really mean beside, either to the left or the right?

"as much" Surely ... so much.

On the computer I am on right now the button to the left of the Z has the following two symbols on it

` ~

I am using a mac, what is useful about these?
unless you are talking about
there is no place like ~
the other one I cant get as much use out of.

[California Tanker]

The key to the left of the "Z" on my keyboard is "shift"

Well if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and looks like a duck (albeit a little duck), seems reasonable to say "It's a duck!"

It doesn't quack like a duck, though. Unlike most WWII light tanks, Scorpion 76 is not designed for fighting or infantry support. It's exactly what its name implies: A tracked recon vehicle, with a gun whose purpose is purely to get it out of trouble. The use in the Falklands was an aberration caused by the terrain.

Incidently, the MkI you link to was intended to be a training vehicle, not a tank. It's closer to being a tankette in operational use.

NTM

[easyrider]

The Panzer I light tank weighed in at around 5 tons and carried just a pair of machine-guns. (The Scorpion is an 8 ton vehicle with a 76mm main gun and one or two 7.62mm MGs.) Nonetheless the Panzer I saw combat in Spain, Poland and France. 500 were involved in the invasion of France. Neither the Panzer I nor the Scorpion are what is now known as Main Battle Tanks (MBTs), but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t tanks: common sense and general opinion would describe both as light tanks.

Note that the British Army are now using Scimitars – a Scorpion with a 30mm Rarden in place of the 76mm main gun – not just as an armoured reconnnaissance vehicle, but as ‘medium armour’. According to the Army website, “Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where a requirement for battlefield effect, that falls between that provided by heavy armour and basic force reconnaissance, has resulted in a tactic that provides a new relationship between armour, infantry and the 21st century battlefield. Known as ‘Medium Armour’ this tactic is about delivering effect on the enemy with the use of automatic gun and cannon. Combining the tracked vehicle's agility, the tank-mind set and the use of a troop of three or four CVR(T)s at the points of contact on the ground, the Medium Armour concept makes for very effective support for the infantry. Some RAC Regiments equipped with Challenger MBT now include a Medium Armour Squadron equipped with Scimitar CVR(T).”

So maybe it does quack after all....:wink:

[Come-quickly]

Well consider this.

The Scorpion is just about protected against 7.62 ball...not sure about AP.
Currently the turret is a manual traverse and the main gun is while a largish calibre not exactly a silence everything in its FoF type weapon.

The British have taken to using the Scimitars as close support vehicles in OBUA, purely because they have them and they are small and nimble enough to keep up with dismounts in an urban environment.

However they are also extremely vulnerable, to large calibre machine guns, RPGs, IEDs, fragrments, incendiary weapons and even ramming.

The British army vehicles in the close support role have three key protection factors, 1. An RPG cage, 2. British Soldiers between the CVR(T) and the enemy and 3. Not a huge chance of coming up against ATGMs or large bore direct fire weapons.

For British commanders on the ground in Basra or in parts of Afghan (where the CVR(T) performed poorly, ironically due to mobility issues) the use of the CVR(T) in the close support role was made acceptable by neccessity and transformed the Scimitar from a recce asset into a self propelled light weapons platform.

The use of Irish AFVs on operations in recent years has in contrast been characterised by convoy/patrol force protection and on occasion supporting recce elements when they dismounted.
The Scorpion is extremely vulnerable when tied down to a lumbering convoy and not particularly well equipped for close support of Cav elements.

On the other hand it is fast and very mobile, and the 76mm is alleged by the current users to be capable of infantry support fire out to 5km.
Which would mean that it would have a potential role in its traditional armoured recce hat. Ranging ahead of and around Irish company group patrols or as a self propelled (very) light gun to be brought up from the back in the event of contacts.

But I can see the Army's current thinking in that it doesn't really offer a whole lot that won't be provided by the PIII variants and LTAVs.

Really the only thing Scorpion has going for it is its mobility and given that the main operational focus for the immediate future is arid Chad I can't see funding being put into our only effective mud runner.

[California Tanker]

Note that the British Army are now using Scimitars – a Scorpion with a 30mm Rarden in place of the 76mm main gun – not just as an armoured reconnnaissance vehicle, but as ‘medium armour’.

And the difference between the role described of close support for the infantry and that of Stryker MGS or StuG? Both are armoured, both are being used in direct fire mode, but they're certainly not tanks either.

NTM

[Fireplace]

Surely for a tank to be a tank, it must have the ability to fight other tanks. There's not much out there that go by the name of 'tank' that a Scorpion could deal with. The main role of the Panzer 1 was as a tracked reconnaissance vehicle and a training tank, much the same role we use the Scorpion for. Yes it was referred to as a 'light tank' but in reality it was never used as one after the Spanish civil war when it's limitations were shown up against the Soviet T-26 and BT-5, both of which could legitimately be referred to as 'light tanks' in their day.

[sledger]

The Scorpion is just about protected against 7.62 ball...not sure about AP.

The hull of the Scorpion is made of all-welded aluminium armour and provides the crew with protection against attack over its frontal area from 14.5 mm projectiles and against 7.62 mm armour-piercing rounds over the remainder of the vehicle. The aluminium armour is also particularly effective against shell splinters.

Source: Jane's Armour & Artillery 2002-2003

[easyrider]

And the difference between the role described of close support for the infantry and that of Stryker MGS or StuG? Both are armoured, both are being used in direct fire mode, but they're certainly not tanks either.

NTM

Hey, I don't care what they're called, it's just someone was slapped down earlier for calling a Scorpion a tank. It seems that the designation of an AFV depends more on how it's used rather than intrinsic design characteristics. Many StuGs were built on Panzer hulls, with the turret replaced by a fixed gun. The Swedish Stridsvagn tank had no turret, neuther did the original British WW1 tanks. The MGS uses a tank gun..... Is there a formal definition somewhere of what is a tank?

[Come-quickly]

The hull of the Scorpion is made of all-welded aluminium armour and provides the crew with protection against attack over its frontal area from 14.5 mm projectiles and against 7.62 mm armour-piercing rounds over the remainder of the vehicle. The aluminium armour is also particularly effective against shell splinters.

Source: Jane's Armour & Artillery 2002-2003

And pigs fly. Manufacturers information is based on test conditions, usually that the armour can defeat rounds coming from certain angles at specific points on the glacis, and not a mention of whether the vehicle would continue to function etc.

The Stridvsagon's turret didn't rotate, the whole vehicle did. It was an experiment in creating an MBT with a very low profile something the Swedes abandoned when it came to their next generation of MBT.

The Stugs used the running parts of tanks, that does not mean that they had the survivability of tanks, it just meant they ran on the same automotive components and some of the same armour as an MBT.

To counter, the Israelis have an IFV made out of captered T-55 Hulls which they do not call or use as a tank. It is defined both by its role and its capabilities.

I suppose ultimately a tank is an independent fire and manoeuvre element as opposed to being a supporting force element.

One thing the British Mk V had in common with the challenger is that they were intended to fight and manoeuvre as tank formations.
The popular concept in early military tank minds was a land-dreadnought, an awful lot of guns and armour moving around independently over terrain.

If you break it down into the more established archetypes.

APC - Protected Transport of a sub-unit - e.g. M113/BTR80/XA-188
AIFV - Enhances the mobility and firepower of a unit - BMP2/CV90/Marder
SPG/SPAAG/ - Direct or Indirect Fire Support of manoevre elements - Stug/2S1/AS90
Recce - provide information and security to manoeuvre elements

MBT - Fighting element - Carries out indepedent fire and manoeuvre.

Now in reality there is of course a great deal needed to support the the "independent" manoeuvre of MBTs but I would posit that this is what defines them.

So to break it down they are defined as much by their capability as their role.
Survivability
Manoeuvrability
Killing Power
Range
Flexibility

If in any doubt ask does a vehicle have all of these things?

[DeV]

Note that the British Army are now using Scimitars – a Scorpion with a 30mm Rarden in place of the 76mm main gun – not just as an armoured reconnnaissance vehicle, but as ‘medium armour’. According to the Army website, “Ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where a requirement for battlefield effect, that falls between that provided by heavy armour and basic force reconnaissance, has resulted in a tactic that provides a new relationship between armour, infantry and the 21st century battlefield. Known as ‘Medium Armour’ this tactic is about delivering effect on the enemy with the use of automatic gun and cannon. Combining the tracked vehicle's agility, the tank-mind set and the use of a troop of three or four CVR(T)s at the points of contact on the ground, the Medium Armour concept makes for very effective support for the infantry. Some RAC Regiments equipped with Challenger MBT now include a Medium Armour Squadron equipped with Scimitar CVR(T).”

So maybe it does quack after all....:wink:

Try looking at Arsse, the users don't consider it "medium armour"!

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there
Using light and heavy tanks in mixed formations has been around since Guderian, De Gaulle and the other tank theorists of the thirties.For example, the Germans fielded Tigers and Pz II/IIIs in mixed formations, for both open-ground and urban warfare, with the Tigers delivering the long-range punch and the Panzers the close-in, confined-space firepower.The Tiger's gun made up for what it lacked in mobility/fuel consumption/access to rail transport/servicability. Chally and CVR-T sounds like a reinvention of the wheel...
The Pz 1 was vulnerable from Day 1 of WW II and well the crews knew it but it was fast, had the fastest-firing machine-guns in Europe, was easy to train crews on and was plentiful.The Germans learned a lot from the Polish campaign and the field commanders wanted a lot of modifying to improve their tanks, having lost so many to anti-tank and even regular artillery.Like every tank man, they wanted more armour, bigger guns, bigger engines, better fire protection, faster speed, etc but the slow pace of the production and modification of tanks meant that their tank men went into France with only scant improvements to their armour and suffered accordingly.Which rings true in Iraq today. When American soldiers have to weld scrap onto their vehcles to provide decent levels of protection,then the lessons have not been learnt and men are condemned to die until the message kicks in again.
regards
GttC