Thanks Thanks:  216
Likes Likes:  545
Dislikes Dislikes:  17
Page 34 of 38 FirstFirst ... 243233343536 ... LastLast
Results 826 to 850 of 947
  1. #826
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Doesn''t offer anywhere that tanks are the solution to urban warfare, just offers across the board that current tactics , techniques and equipment are not suitable for modern urban warfare especially given the size of cities and the large concentrations of civilians.

    Interestingly the use of flamethrowers has been banned in proximity to large concentrations......while someone toys with the nuclear option!
    Time for another break I think......

  2. #827
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    939
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    Doesn''t offer anywhere that tanks are the solution to urban warfare, just offers across the board that current tactics , techniques and equipment are not suitable for modern urban warfare especially given the size of cities and the large concentrations of civilians.

    Interestingly the use of flamethrowers has been banned in proximity to large concentrations......while someone toys with the nuclear option!
    More reading/ideas on the subject

    https://mwi.usma.edu/army-megacities-unit-look-like/

  3. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
  4. #828
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    1 Armor Battalion

    A tank battalion trained for the specifics of urban warfare is crucial. Yes, they’re too big and too unwieldy for large sections of dense cities—but not entire cities. And where they can be brought to bear, they can offer the necessary decisive advantage on the urban battlefield. Historical urban warfare case studies repeatedly show the demand for mobile, protected firepower.

    The ability to combine armor and infantry into decentralized fighting teams, with armor supporting infantry, infantry supporting armor, has been shown to be key to success in urban fighting. An army that can execute combined arms maneuver with precision indirect fire and air support overwhelms enemies even in urban terrain.


    Urban operations demand decentralized, small-unit operations at the tactical level, with junior leaders capable of operating independently. Much of the fighting in Iraq was by company- and platoon-level teams of infantry, armor, aviation, sniper, and intelligence, all combined at the lowest level under the command of captains and lieutenants.

    The three infantry battalions and one armor battalion should be trained much like the combined-arms Armor Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) deployed to Iraq. These would be companies of Strykers, Bradley, and tanks platoons with organic intelligence teams and enablers to conduct independent operations within the cities.
    While this is the theory, I wonder on deployment what the casualties would be like among the tanks. But you are now relegating hugely expensive vehicles to what in essence is house to house fighting and street clearance, hugely wasteful .
    Time for another break I think......

  5. #829
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    939
    Post Thanks / Like
    Urban warfare is never effecient. The Russian model of combined arms battalions (combat engineers, armour, infantry, small UAVs, EW, Snipers and MLRS) is worthy of study. Some good YouTube videos out there of DB9s and Tanks working in pairs supported by infantry and small UAV teams in Syria

  6. Thanks hptmurphy thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  7. #830
    Captain Truck Driver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Here And There...
    Posts
    10,315
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Urban warfare is never effecient. The Russian model of combined arms battalions (combat engineers, armour, infantry, small UAVs, EW, Snipers and MLRS) is worthy of study. Some good YouTube videos out there of DB9s and Tanks working in pairs supported by infantry and small UAV teams in Syria
    Tanks supported by Infantry. Where have I heard that one before? Ah yes, the German Wehrmacht did it with Panzer Grenadiers in WWII
    "Well, stone me! We've had cocaine, bribery and Arsenal scoring two goals at home. But just when you thought there were truly no surprises left in football, Vinnie Jones turns out to be an international player!" (Jimmy Greaves)!"

  8. #831
    Commandant
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,854
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Truck Driver View Post
    Tanks supported by Infantry. Where have I heard that one before? Ah yes, the German Wehrmacht did it with Panzer Grenadiers in WWII
    i think everyone accepts that urban warfare is a mess, and that armour is vunerable in urban ops - but what do you suggest, armour not supported by Infantry, or infantry not supported by armour? i look forward to reading the career prospects of the Officer at Staff College who suggests that in urban operations the Armour should just sit outside the gates catching up on their suntans and reading while the Infantry get sent in without the big guns and protection of our donkey-whalloping colleagues...

    personally i think that urban operations should be left to a couple of Regiments of belt-fed 155's, but i'm given to understand that its a non-correct solution on the HCSC...

  9. #832
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    i think everyone accepts that urban warfare is a mess, and that armour is vunerable in urban ops - but what do you suggest, armour not supported by Infantry, or infantry not supported by armour? i look forward to reading the career prospects of the Officer at Staff College who suggests that in urban operations the Armour should just sit outside the gates catching up on their suntans and reading while the Infantry get sent in without the big guns and protection of our donkey-whalloping colleagues...

    personally i think that urban operations should be left to a couple of Regiments of belt-fed 155's, but i'm given to understand that its a non-correct solution on the HCSC...
    Not going to be a viable defence in The Hague either

  10. Likes DaithiDub liked this post
  11. #833
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    There have even been calls to bring back flamethrowers, as the US found in Fallujah that enemies in bunkers built inside houses and other buildings were very difficult to deal with and they resorted to point-blank fire from M1s/ widespread use of ATGMs/ precision air-launched missiles and bombs and even their own improvised bombs to blow down buildings with enemies inside, rather than go to hand-to-hand fighting with grenades and automatics up close and personal, as that drove the casualty rate off the clock.

  12. #834
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Johannesburg
    Posts
    529
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Not going to be a viable defence in The Hague either
    Irrelevent if you are not western or don't lose.

  13. Dislikes DeV disliked this post
  14. #835
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    939
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    There have even been calls to bring back flamethrowers, as the US found in Fallujah that enemies in bunkers built inside houses and other buildings were very difficult to deal with and they resorted to point-blank fire from M1s/ widespread use of ATGMs/ precision air-launched missiles and bombs and even their own improvised bombs to blow down buildings with enemies inside, rather than go to hand-to-hand fighting with grenades and automatics up close and personal, as that drove the casualty rate off the clock.
    Lots of talk in the milblog sphere of "Why US destroyed Iraqi cities to save them".

    Haven't had the time to read, just offering the link

  15. #836
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,068
    Post Thanks / Like
    the really important conflict at the moment, which will shape the procurementof armoured vehicles for PDF units overseas is the Ukraine especially the tactics employed by the Russian Battalion tactical groups deployed there, which is giving everybody in western defence circles food for thought, in particular
    • The use of UAVs in conjunction with long range massed artillery fire to cause massive casualties.
    • The way local militias/irregular forces are so well integrated with the Battalion tactical groups.
    • The use of EW to disrupt comms and the use of information war
    • That the current generation of Russian tanks fitted with Reactive armour and active protection systems are pretty much invulnerable to the anti-tank weapons the Ukrainians have (hence why they requested javelins from the Americans. Reason Americans agreed to send them, they’re petrified that javelin might not be able to defeat modernised Russian T-72/T-90)
    • Same tanks are massacring Ukrainian mechanised infantry.
    Last edited by paul g; 18th January 2018 at 04:07.

  16. Thanks hptmurphy, sofa, DaithiDub thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, The real Jack, Tempest, Rocinante, Banner liked this post
  17. #837
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,587
    Post Thanks / Like
    What's missing from talk about the Russian experience in Ukraine/Crimea is it's actual losses; how many actual vehicles/airframes/human casualties,etc? Journalists are resorting to reading death notices in Russian newspapers or watching railway stations or reading blogs from angry mothers of dead soldiers, to determine actual loss rates.

  18. #838
    Pioneer
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    the really important conflict at the moment, which will shape the procurementof armoured vehicles for PDF units overseas is the Ukraine especially the tactics employed by the Russian Battalion tactical groups deployed there, which is giving everybody in western defence circles food for thought, in particular
    • The use of UAVs in conjunction with long range massed artillery fire to cause massive casualties.
    • The way local militias/irregular forces are so well integrated with the Battalion tactical groups.
    • The use of EW to disrupt comms and the use of information war
    • That the current generation of Russian tanks fitted with Reactive armour and active protection systems are pretty much invulnerable to the anti-tank weapons the Ukrainians have (hence why they requested javelins from the Americans. Reason Americans agreed to send them, they’re petrified that javelin might not be able to defeat modernised Russian T-72/T-90)
    • Same tanks are massacring Ukrainian mechanised infantry.
    Really well put. Out of curiosity why does it seem Ireland is so hesitant at the concept of acquiring equipment originating from Eastern nations such as Russia, China, or other SCO allied nations? Given the PDF's need to improve its arsenal of armored vehicles (e.g lack of battle tanks) the PDF should be more open to exploring options outside of NATO. Given the fact that vehicles such as T-72's, T-90's, and even T-55's are far cheaper in relation to MBT's from western countries (e.g M1 Abrams or German leopards) it could be an attractive option. Furthermore, there are so many Russian/Soviet vehicles in circulation Ireland would not even need to purchase it from an SCO nation directly as to jeopardize their observer status role in NATO. Just food for thought as to how to circumvent the tight budget.

  19. #839
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Really well put. Out of curiosity why does it seem Ireland is so hesitant at the concept of acquiring equipment originating from Eastern nations such as Russia, China, or other SCO allied nations? Given the PDF's need to improve its arsenal of armored vehicles (e.g lack of battle tanks) the PDF should be more open to exploring options outside of NATO. Given the fact that vehicles such as T-72's, T-90's, and even T-55's are far cheaper in relation to MBT's from western countries (e.g M1 Abrams or German leopards) it could be an attractive option. Furthermore, there are so many Russian/Soviet vehicles in circulation Ireland would not even need to purchase it from an SCO nation directly as to jeopardize their observer status role in NATO. Just food for thought as to how to circumvent the tight budget.
    Short answer - we want to meet NATO standards as far as possible

  20. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  21. #840
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Really well put. Out of curiosity why does it seem Ireland is so hesitant at the concept of acquiring equipment originating from Eastern nations such as Russia, China, or other SCO allied nations? Given the PDF's need to improve its arsenal of armored vehicles (e.g lack of battle tanks) the PDF should be more open to exploring options outside of NATO. Given the fact that vehicles such as T-72's, T-90's, and even T-55's are far cheaper in relation to MBT's from western countries (e.g M1 Abrams or German leopards) it could be an attractive option. Furthermore, there are so many Russian/Soviet vehicles in circulation Ireland would not even need to purchase it from an SCO nation directly as to jeopardize their observer status role in NATO. Just food for thought as to how to circumvent the tight budget.
    As pointed out by DeV we want to maintain NATO standards even if currently some NATO countries have or are buying Russian equipment (Turkey and S400 missile system). Both Sweden and Finland operate Russian APC's and IFV's but they are in the process of phasing them out.

    The T-55 are a very simple tank from the early 1950's, OK for the conscript army of the USSR but not really something you want to rely upon today as an MBT. The T-72 was also a cheap export tank, the Russians had the more capable T-64 as their main spearhead tank. But when you look at it and why they produced the T-72 it was that a capable tank cost a lot of money. So export and second line units got the much cheaper and less capable T-72. Only problem now is the T-64 was made in the Ukraine and not in Russia.

    Russian or Chinese equipment might be slightly cheaper for initial purchase but the total cost is likely to be just as high as that of the western version. And that is assuming that they are willing and able to supply spares and updates over the life of the project. This is something that will also change depending upon the political wind at the time. You do not want to be lumped with 100 T-90 tanks and no spares, no matter how cheap they were at the start.

  22. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Sparky42 liked this post
  23. #841
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    There are I think Westernised version of some former Eastern Bloc equipment but you’d looking at geopolitical risks, possible sanctions, spares, support etc

  24. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  25. #842
    Pioneer
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    There are I think Westernised version of some former Eastern Bloc equipment but you’d looking at geopolitical risks, possible sanctions, spares, support etc
    very true. Has the PDF pursued the idea of purchasing MBT's or will they continue utilizing only recon vehicles for the foreseeable future?

  26. #843
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    609
    Post Thanks / Like
    and anyway do we really need MBTs

  27. Likes DeV liked this post
  28. #844
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    very true. Has the PDF pursued the idea of purchasing MBT's or will they continue utilizing only recon vehicles for the foreseeable future?
    MBTs can’t be used in isolation, they need armoured infantry and SP artillery

    That costs a lot

    There are lots of other reasons why not in this thread

    We retired our last proper tank in the 1970s (which was obsolete at the time)

  29. #845
    Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    #839 Which might have had/has the unfortunate(?) result that if it can't be NATO (western) equipment, it can't be nothin' at all?

    Regards other sources, it looks like for some Chinese top-end equipment, that the key components - specifically engines, are sourced in Europe (not just Russia), and/or are Chinese copies... i.e. for tanks, helicopters, small jets. This could make good relations for future parts supply less critical.

    Also, Greece and Cyprus I think are other e.g. western nations with some ex-soviet/Russian equipment.

  30. #846
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,265
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhingeNot View Post
    #839 Which might have had/has the unfortunate(?) result that if it can't be NATO (western) equipment, it can't be nothin' at all?

    Regards other sources, it looks like for some Chinese top-end equipment, that the key components - specifically engines, are sourced in Europe (not just Russia), and/or are Chinese copies... i.e. for tanks, helicopters, small jets. This could make good relations for future parts supply less critical.

    Also, Greece and Cyprus I think are other e.g. western nations with some ex-soviet/Russian equipment.
    Standardisation and interoperability are the name of the game

    You can’t just plug and play

  31. #847
    Pioneer
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by apc View Post
    and anyway do we really need MBTs
    Depends on the operational goals of the PDF moving forward I would think. Looking at other neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland they possess MBT's if we are using them as a measuring stick. That said if the PDF was to make a big purchase I would argue for a purchase of capable fighter jets due to the increasing international risk of terror attacks from the air. I know that the British Air Force is responsible for escorting unwanted planes out of Irish airspace so if anything that's a smarter investment in terms of practicality. But that's a topic for an entirely different thread and I don't want to drive this thread off topic haha.

  32. #848
    Pioneer
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Standardisation and interoperability are the name of the game

    You can’t just plug and play
    Isn't there some eastern bloc equipment that uses NATO standardization? I know that's the case for small arms such as AKM's in terms of ammunition but am unsure about AFVs in terms of parts?

  33. #849
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    oh....god.... here we go again..........
    Time for another break I think......

  34. Likes The real Jack liked this post
  35. #850
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    621
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert View Post
    Isn't there some eastern bloc equipment that uses NATO standardization? I know that's the case for small arms such as AKM's in terms of ammunition but am unsure about AFVs in terms of parts?
    We have to be careful with the old designation "eastern bloc", what we are talking about are systems developed from Soviet or Warsaw Pact equipment. These are the items we need to steer well clear of.

    Today however there are western standards in much of the nations of the former eastern bloc now in the EU. The Holland class OPV were built in Romania, if you by a Finnish AMV then it will most likely now come from Poland. The difference is they are designed and build to western standards.

  36. Likes na grohmití, DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •