PDA

View Full Version : The roles of armour



Come-quickly
12th November 2004, 03:27
After spending some time looking wistfully at the two Sizus and overhearing that our only tracked armour is being saved from the scrapheap by the shock revelation that wheeled vehicles wont go in mud; I decided to start another topic on the future employment of armour in the DF.

For simplicities sake Im going to throw in a few fairly disparate suggestions and questions under the one banner:

1. Will we ever operate one or more fully mechanized operational units? i.e. a battalion or battalion battlegroup capable of moving entirely under armour cover and should we.

2. Is it feasible to centre all armour purchases around one common design in each weight class? i.e. LTV/APC/FSV?

3. Given the increasingly warlike and uncivilised AOs we're heading for is it time to reconsider tracked vehicles?

4. Will neccessity ever force the purchase of MBTs of any form?

Now my theories on the questions are as follows.

1. We should be capable of operating a mechanised (or at least motorised) brigade for flexibilities sake if not to deploy it as a whole.
Also In high risk situations I dont see how a transit van or other softskin is an acceptable means of transport.

2. Following on from this I believe that the PIII is a mite too expensive to fill all roles in a battalion group that require a truck size capacity, a second tier APC in a lower cost bracket (i.e. the Sizu/Patria) to fulfill utility and CS/CSS roles could be managed efficiently if it had significant commonality with another vehicle in service (say a softskin truck).

3. The problems of mobility in locales like Liberia (anyone seen the photos of the convoy negotiating the "roads" at the start of the rainy season), seem to present a pretty urgent case to me for some sort of tracked armoured vehicle s capable of moving troops and supplies, not neccesarily a fighting vehicle as such.
One suggestion would be the the Armoured extended version of the BV 206s, (BV 210?).

4. The weapon system on any future fire support vehicle is less likely to be needed in Kosovo style policing roles, and not likely to be useful in more volatile situation if its wheeled chassis is stuck in rough terrain unable to catch up with the more mobile units its supporting.

gaff85
12th November 2004, 05:10
I also seen on militaryphotos.com that the scorpions are being upgraded for a "future" deployment? What type of upgrade are they to receive?

andy
12th November 2004, 06:13
can u give a url for that in militaryphotos.com ?

Steamy Window
12th November 2004, 06:54
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4296&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=272

Bravo20
12th November 2004, 14:43
Point 1: I think we are heading there.
Point 2: I don't know
Point 3: If you chang "warlike and uncivilised" to "difficult terrain unsuitable for wheels" your point would make more sense.
Point 4: Read California Tanker's Blog to see the impact of using MBTs in roles other than tank battles.

warlord
12th November 2004, 14:51
They're getting new diesel engines and tracks, the upgrade process isn't starting till January.

1. We already have the ability to move a whole battalion under armour, there are enough Mowags to kit out 1 battalion.

2. Do you mean 1 design to fulfill all roles in different up armoured and down armoured configurations or 1 design for each role? The less types you have the less strain you put on your logs support.

3. Just because its tracked doesn't mean it has greater mobility, each offers advantages and disadvantages.

4. As far as I know Irish roads are only capable of taking MLC 40 vehicles, what modern MBT that offers excellent survivability characteristics fits into this class? No Modern Western MBT anyways.

Come-quickly
12th November 2004, 16:29
Your sure that our 65 Mowags can be used to move every person in a 650+ man infantry battalion group under cover?
Of course we couldnt deploy all the PIIIs on ops without giving up training for other personnell, such as the next class of APC drivers.

LTVs will bring us a step closer but there still wont be enough capacity to protect a whole deployed battalion.

Another point is that an APC with a high enough ground clearance (see: Sizu) could make a good fist of towing an L118.

Tank
12th November 2004, 16:54
Point 1: We are already, even if there are still a few problems (See Come-quickly's message).

Point 2: That would be the sensible thing to do in order to make it easier for the logistics guys. You can even mount a bigger gun on the same chassis so as to enable different roles for the same vehicle type.

Point 3: a) Tracked vehicles are of the "medium" i.e AIFV or "heavy" i.e MBT armour variety. Those types of vehicles are more for high-intensity conflicts (Kuwait 1990/ Iraq Invasion recently). They are not effective either in terms of costs or usage (Relatively low speed as compared with wheeled vehicles/ High irritation factor with indigs) in low intensity situations.
b) The AOs we will be in won't be the high-intensity type, but rather peace-keeping after someone else has gone in to do the heavy stuff before us. Also, we're surrounded by allies in the EU, so I doubt we'll ever have to fight a war in Ireland where we might conceivably need heavy armour.
c) Tracked vehicles of the heavy type won't be able to operate effectively in Ireland.
d) So with our restricted budget we can contribute better with what we have (Mowag P III) and maybe some more support vehicles of the same type for different roles.

Point 4: See above.

On another note, I read in one of the older threads that the role of the Cav has been downgraded. Can anyone tell me what that is about?

Goldie fish
12th November 2004, 18:30
Summary=CQ Likes tanks...been here before so often...

Come-quickly
12th November 2004, 18:34
point to note oh one who knows all, only one point mentions tanks.

Goldie fish
12th November 2004, 18:36
I'm sorry..."tracked armour" :biggrin:

dbpackers
12th November 2004, 18:55
I remember reading a long time ago that the Scorpion had a lighter footprint (in terms of force per area) than a fully loaded soldier. I also remember that during the Falklands War, the British Scorpions/Scimtars were able to cross the bogland and so facilitate the cross-country advance. Don't we have a lot of bogs ?

Goldie fish
12th November 2004, 19:26
I remember reading a long time ago that the Scorpion had a lighter footprint (in terms of force per area) than a fully loaded soldier. I also remember that during the Falklands War, the British Scorpions/Scimtars were able to cross the bogland and so facilitate the cross-country advance. Don't we have a lot of bogs ?

We do,but the environmentalists wont let anyone cross them in any sort of vehicle,never mind tank,for fear of upsetting the delicate ecological balance.

The RM now use the Hagglunds ATV for this purpose...(Licence Built by alvis,of course)

Come-quickly
12th November 2004, 20:57
Thats the BV 206/210 I referred to

http://www.mil.ee/im/varustus/tehnikapilt/atv3.jpg

Goldie fish
12th November 2004, 21:53
No,its a different one.

mutter nutter
12th November 2004, 22:47
No,its a different one.

you mean the Bvs10 Viking?

sorry couldn'tfind a decent picture :frown:

Viking is a fully amphibious armoured all-terrain vehicle, which consists of two tracked vehicle units linked by a steering mechanism. The UK's Royal Marine Commandos took delivery of its first batch of production Viking All-Terrain Vehicle (Protected), ATV(P), vehicles in July 2003 and the Viking is planned to become fully operational in 2005. The UK Ministry of Defence has ordered 108 Vikings from Hagglunds Vehicles, a subsidiary of the Alvis plc group. The Royal Marines will deploy three variants of the vehicle, the troop carrier (TCV), the command vehicle (CV) and the repair recovery vehicle (RCV).

The Viking vehicle, which can operate in temperatures from -46°C to +46°C, was selected for its multi-role and worldwide operational capability in jungle, desert and Arctic conditions and for rapid deployment.

Some of the vehicle bodies will be built at the Alvis manufacturing plant in Telford in the UK and final production and assembly will be carried out at Alvis Hagglunds AB in Ornskolsvik in Sweden. The vehicles will be in service until beyond 2023.

The vehicle development was based on the operationally proven capability of the Swedish Hagglunds Bv206 and Bv206S vehicles. Over 11,000 vehicles are in service in 40 countries. The Viking, fitted with a more powerful engine, is larger and faster than the Bv206S and has greater load capacity.

The capability and configuration of the vehicle has evolved and been refined through co-operation between Hagglunds, the Combat Vehicles Support Light Project Team at the MOD and the Royal Marines' Trials and Training Unit, Joint Air Transport Evaluation Unit and Infantry Trials and Training Unit.

The first prototype Viking vehicles were delivered in June 2001. The vehicles successfully completed an 18-month series of trials in Norway, UK, Sweden and Oman. In Norway the vehicle successfully completed a winter deployment inside the Arctic Circle. In September 2001 Vikings were transported to Oman and took part in Exercise Saif Sereea 2 where full operational testing was carried out in the extreme hot and dry desert conditions.

VIKING VEHICLE DESIGN
The Viking vehicle consists of two linked tracked units. The units are articulated vertically and horizontally for steering and for manoeuvring over rough terrain. All four tracks are driving continuously giving maximum tractive effort in all conditions. The rubber tracks systems are supplied by Soucy International of Quebec, Canada.

The body is of armoured steel construction. The rounded edges and smooth contours of the profile assist in minimising the radar cross-section.

The vehicle design allows for upgrades and for the installation of modular subsystems to suit specific operational requirements, including add-on armour, a range of weapon mounts and load changers and standard cargo platforms. Future systems such as the Bowman radio can be installed.

BVS10 ARMOUR
Bolt-on armour plates provide protection against 7.62mm armour piercing rounds and 152mm artillery shell fragments from a range of more than 10m. The vehicle is rated to protect against 0.5kg charge anti-personnel mines.

CUMMINS TURBO DIESEL ENGINE
The vehicle is equipped with a 5.9 litre in-line six-cylinder turbo diesel engine designed by Cummins and producing 250bhp (183kW at 2,600rpm), more than twice the power of the Bv206. The maximum torque is 840Nm at 1,600rpm. The Allison MD3560 six forward plus one reverse speed automatic transmission has differentials and final drives on both the rear and front cabins. Hagglunds produced new designs of drive sprockets, tracks, road wheels, chassis and suspension for the Viking.

Steering is by hydraulic rams that articulate the front and rear cabs in response to the driver's inputs. Steering does not require one track to be braked as in other tracked vehicles. This gives great advantage in increasing the vehicle's over-snow, over-sand and over-soft ground capabilities.

VIKING'S ALL TERRAIN MOBILITY
The fully laden weight is 10t but the Viking maintains good mobility on soft terrain such as snow, mud or sand because the ground pressure is minimised by the even load distribution over the four tracks. The tracks are 620mm wide moulded rubber with chord. The mean maximum ground pressure is about the same as that of the Bv206 vehicle, which is 4t lighter. The vehicle retains mobility even if a track is damaged by a mine.

The ground clearance of the Viking has been greatly increased over that of the Bv206 family of vehicles, to enhance the cross-country capabilities. The turning circle is 14m diameter.

The Viking can ford through water up to a depth of 1.5m without preparation. The vehicle is fully amphibious, being able to swim in deeper water with less than two minutes preparation including closing holes and fitting a front vane to prevent a bow wave washing over the front windows. The water speed is 5km/h.

The vehicle can be deployed from all Royal Marines landing craft and transported to the area of operations by C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster. The unladen Viking can be underslung and airlifted by an RAF Chinook helicopter. The Viking can be split into two sections in just 20 minutes to be carried by the Merlin helicopter.

The Viking's speed on flat terrain is comparable to that of a modern infantry fighting vehicle. The speed requirement specifications of 50km/h on level class A roads, 35km/h on tracks and 15km/h cross country have been exceeded in vehicle trials: for example, the Viking achieved road speeds of over 80km/h. The range on metalled roads is 300km.

VIKING'S FRONT AND REAR CABINS
The front cabin of the Viking accommodates the driver at the front left, plus three fully equipped marines.

The rear and forward cabins are linked by a two-way voice communications unit. The rear cabin can carry eight fully equipped marines. Alternatively, the rear cabin can carry a mortar section, a heavy machine gun section or a fully equipped anti-tank detachment with Milan anti-armour missiles and firing posts. Both cabins are fully air-conditioned.

VIKING (BVS10) - WEAPON AND SELF DEFENCE SYSTEMS
In its normal deployment the vehicle remains out of contact with hostile troops but if attacked or ambushed the vehicle's self defence systems can be deployed. The roof of the forward cabin is fitted with a ring mount for a 12.7mm Browning heavy machine gun or a 7.62 general purpose machine gun. The driver or vehicle commander can operate smoke dischargers on the front of the vehicle which can fire smoke or white phosphorous grenades.

Click here for printable version


SPECIFICATIONS


The Viking fully amphibious armoured all-terrain vehicle.


The first production Viking was delivered in July 2003.


108 Vikings have been ordered for the UK Royal Marines.



The Viking has a speed of over 15km/h cross country.


Viking was developed from the Bv206 which is in service in 40 countries.





.





Viking can swim with less than two minutes preparation. Water speed is 5km/h.







Copyright 2004 SPG Media Limited a subsidiary of SPG Media Group PLC

Goldie fish
12th November 2004, 23:43
Sounds right. Saw a photo somewhere the other day dunno where

California Tanker
13th November 2004, 05:53
Recent events in Iraq have shown that there is still no substitute for a heavily armoured vehicle. "All the time, effort and money spent in MOUT (FIBUA) training wasn't worth one M1 tank"

If you are going into a fight in an urban area, you need to have something capable of handling an RPG. MOWAG with slat/Reactive armour might possibly do it. The BMP-T might be an even better bet. Or even a heavy APC like Achzarit.

I don't advocate having battalions of the things, just one squadron that can be dispatched two or three per mission.

NTM

parkman
13th November 2004, 14:28
Most gendarme/paramilitary forces are probably better equipted than the Irish Army.It is little more than an internal security force with little or no capacity for offensive action.It has no airsupport or seaward defences.It could hardly be even described as an army of manoeuvre never having excercised beyond battalion level.There is no point supplying it with the kind of armour described here unless you rethink it's entire role.

Come-quickly
13th November 2004, 19:19
Most gendarme/paramilitary forces are probably better equipted than the Irish Army.It is little more than an internal security force with little or no capacity for offensive action.It has no airsupport or seaward defences.It could hardly be even described as an army of manoeuvre never having excercised beyond battalion level.There is no point supplying it with the kind of armour described here unless you rethink it's entire role.

Not as well equipped as your defacto political party even?

There is a major rethinking of roles, we're not going to let cowards dictate that we leave thousands to die while they preach about how superior they are for their complicity.

Goldie fish
13th November 2004, 22:24
What? Drummer/Parkmen posts on something non political? Its a miracle

ias
13th November 2004, 23:21
Can anyone explain to me what is the current thinking in the DF regarding use of armour? Looking at what has been deployed to Liberia it strikes me as though the Panhards are being used as "Fire Support Vehicles" for the (armoured) infantry?

IAS

parkman
13th November 2004, 23:23
There is a major rethinking of roles, we're not going to let cowards dictate that we leave thousands to die while they preach about how superior they are for their complicity.
I would be delighted to see a half decently equipted defence force but it will never happen .The government will spend the minimum amount to finance a minimalist defence force.It will never sanction military support for any reason unless requested by the UN and as for leaving thousands to die even the US will only attack third world countries.So nice thought come quickly but get real.

Come-quickly
13th November 2004, 23:24
Im still strongly advocating the second tier (ie cheaper) APC idea, as I said and some unduly self assured posters ignored commonality with a softskin fleet such as a HGV or Unimog type medium truck would create logistical efficiencies.
The PIII is immensely expensive and using it for utility roles doesn't make financial sense.

ias
13th November 2004, 23:37
C-q, I agree with you, for what it's worth. My suggestion would be to buy MP44/Bushmasters (there's also the larger MP66 - 6x6 mine protected APC) instead of LTVs, as the Aussies have done, they can be used for all the LTV roles, with better protection especially against mines, and also as an APC, probably the only arguement against them is size and a higher cost.

IAS

Goldie fish
14th November 2004, 00:01
1. Will we ever operate one or more fully mechanized operational units? i.e. a battalion or battalion battlegroup capable of moving entirely under armour cover and should we.
What is Mechanised exactly? Do you mean the entire Bn and all its elements being carried under armour,including all your support coy elements? This is in effect what mechanised means to most countries. The White paper dictated that our DEFENCE FORCES army is a Light Infantry based force,with most of its tactics being based around that. For A mechanised Batallion you require all elements mobile,and all combat or combat support units to be armoured.At the moment all our vehicles combined,at a push could probably only move one batallion,and its support elements,but once on the ground,they would be unable to carry out much of their duties and remain mobile.
To become mechanised,you ae replacing your infantry in their TCV(4x4 Trucks) with APCs(of whatever type),and you require enough to carry each section,platoon hq,support platoon,coy HQ,support coy,etc.
This group then needs a mobile logistics unit to follow it so that inevitable repairs can be carried out. Armoured recovery vehicles are exceptionally expensive,which is why we only have a modified APC to do a basic recovery task...



2. Is it feasible to centre all armour purchases around one common design in each weight class? i.e. LTV/APC/FSV?
It is,but it also goes against the whole idea of a monopoly. Commonality of parts may be considered when selecting vehicles,but this does not always mean that the vehicle is the best one for the Job.



3. Given the increasingly warlike and uncivilised AOs we're heading for is it time to reconsider tracked vehicles?
Is there really much difference between the two?What advantage do tracked vehicles have in a hostile environment?
Manouverability? Gimmie 8x8 any day.Tracks break as often as tyres get punctured, but an 8x8 with 2 wheels missing can still get you home. A tank with one track is a large immobile target.
Protection? Tanks get blown up too. Tracks are not armour.



4. Will neccessity ever force the purchase of MBTs of any form?
Only if we intend being invaded by a country with MBTs,or we intend going on missions where we will come up against an agressor with nothing but MBTs. The Israelis had MBTs in Lebanon. It was an issue solved by anti tank weapons. MBTs require a new type of tactic to the light infantry type we are used to..see point one.

Come-quickly
14th November 2004, 00:47
I stated in the first post that I meant mechanised, as in everything under armour.
The white paper is a sham, a convenient means of outwardly justifying underfunding, its also pre the large war that happens to be going on.
MBTs are still pretty much the only vehicles that can survive a single RPG round, thats a big message for a peacekeeping force to send out, you can hit me with what you've got but I'll still be there and my guns bigger.
Your unrealistic stipulations require any vehicle to be invincible and adaptable to all situations if its to be considered worthy for some.
8x8 does not matched tracked mobility anywhere outside of the MOWAG/GM website, I never suggested that tracked vehicles are neccesarily better armoured, thats why I suggested the BV 210/Viking which has similar levels of protection to the PIII but a lot more mobility.

Goldie fish
14th November 2004, 01:02
If you are going into a fight in an urban area, you need to have something capable of handling an RPG. MOWAG with slat/Reactive armour might possibly do it. The BMP-T might be an even better bet. Or even a heavy APC like Achzarit.

I don't advocate having battalions of the things, just one squadron that can be dispatched two or three per mission.

NTM

I'll take the word of the man who lives/works in a tank over that of the guy who just has a hard on for them.

CQ,please explain how tracks have any advantage over wheels?

yellowjacket
14th November 2004, 02:13
Selective quotes there Goldie.. you left out the first sentence of the bould CT's post:


Recent events in Iraq have shown that there is still no substitute for a heavily armoured vehicle. "All the time, effort and money spent in MOUT (FIBUA) training wasn't worth one M1 tank"

Goldie fish
14th November 2004, 10:33
Indeed. He says the Tank is more useful than Fibua,but he never says the Tank is better than the wheeled AFV, in a FIBUA environment.

California Tanker
14th November 2004, 12:43
Nope. It's a horses for courses scenario. I can see cases where the wheels have the advantage, especially in terms of avoiding being mobility-killed, but sometimes you just want to have 'invulnerability', which implies more weight than the average wheeled vehicle can handle.

NTM

ias
14th November 2004, 16:18
C-q, by the way, GM no longer owns Mowag, it is now owned by General Dynamics Land Systems.

IAS

MORTAR DAN
14th November 2004, 17:16
It Makes No Odds What Armour. They Are Still Going To Make Us Walk Over Table Top. Lets Hope What New Armour We Get Does Not Have The Same Teething Problems As The Mowag.

warlord
15th November 2004, 04:55
Come Quickly what utility roles does the Mowag fill?

In Falluja the M1 may have been of more value than FIBUA drills as Cali Tanker said but you have to remember that the enemy were insurgents, not properly trained soldiers. History has shown that when it comes to combat operations in built up areas armour and city blocks don't mix, especially when your up against trained soldiers or people who know the capabilities of armour and anti tank weapons.

I suspect the only reason the M1 proved so effect was because the marines on the ground done such a fine job of clearing out and securing enemy positions.

Goldie fish
15th November 2004, 07:58
Without dragging this too far into a Tracks V Wheels debate,You must consider that tracked vehicles for the most part are not as fuel efficient as wheeled, and require transport by road via Low Loader in the majority of cases. You then require Specialised Heavy trucks to Pull these specialised trailers(Not an issue with smaller Tracked vehicles,such as Scorpion). The BA recently invested in the Massive Oshkosh truck for this purpose. You also need larger areas to train with tracked vehicles. The BA do their training in Canada. Where would we go? Most Tracked vehicles,with the exception of scorpion and the Hagglunds vehicles,will sink in the bogs that dominate any open space in this country.
As they will more than likely be used in overseas missions,you require specialised ships to be available to carry them wherever you need to go,or similarly suitable aircraft.

In short to persue a policy of using tracked vehicles would require major investment in all areas of the DF,and a radical change in tactics.

California Tanker
15th November 2004, 13:49
It's not that tanks have no business in urban areas. It's that they have no business being unsupported in urban terrain. Just look at the difference in Groznyy the first time (Mounted attacks only, almost every vehicle destroyed), and the second time (Combined arms, only one vehicle destroyed).

Basically, the tank rolls up to where it can shoot a strongpoint. Saves the footsloggers the hassle of clearing the house.

NTM

on_ready_to_fire
15th November 2004, 16:37
"Most Tracked vehicles,with the exception of scorpion and the Hagglunds vehicles,will sink in the bogs that dominate any open space in this country"


Gentlemen, I can assure you that the Scorpion (and the Hagglunds ) can be M-killed on the lethal Irish Bogs!Trust me on this one ;). Saying that they are a fantastic ARMOURED RECCE VEHICLE, and will operate very effectively on most terrain, when driven correctly and within the vehicles parameters.

As California Tanker has stated Combined Arms is the most effective way of operating within a OBUA environs. A tank platoon operating within the built up theatre is very VERY vunerable without support of the Infantry .Alot of "dead space" when hatches down in a turret, and I'm sure C.T will agree that it's nice to have some Infantry watching/securing ground that the tank crew cannot.

Come-quickly
16th November 2004, 15:49
There seems to be a concerted effort to respond to statements I did not make here, Warlord I did not say the Mowag is used for utility roles I said that we should have an armoured vehicle for utility roles.
Goldie do you have a hard on for me because I cant see any other reason for your skewed contributions to the discussion.

warlord
16th November 2004, 18:23
The PIII is immensely expensive and using it for utility roles doesn't make financial sense.

To me that means you're implying the Mowag is used for utility roles but if you didn't mean it in that context then fair enough.

Goldie fish
17th November 2004, 00:08
Here is how discussions work. You put forward your points of view. We either agree or disagree.
I disagree,as I have done every other time you have brought up this topic in the past.

You can sob in the corner,or you can address the opposing viewpoints. Take your pick. I'll pass the kleenex.

Come-quickly
17th November 2004, 00:09
How about you just answer whats written?

Goldie fish
17th November 2004, 00:15
How about you just answer whats written?

How about you read my replies..


What is Mechanised exactly? Do you mean the entire Bn and all its elements being carried under armour,including all your support coy elements? This is in effect what mechanised means to most countries. The White paper dictated that our DEFENCE FORCES army is a Light Infantry based force,with most of its tactics being based around that. For A mechanised Batallion you require all elements mobile,and all combat or combat support units to be armoured.At the moment all our vehicles combined,at a push could probably only move one batallion,and its support elements,but once on the ground,they would be unable to carry out much of their duties and remain mobile.
To become mechanised,you ae replacing your infantry in their TCV(4x4 Trucks) with APCs(of whatever type),and you require enough to carry each section,platoon hq,support platoon,coy HQ,support coy,etc.
This group then needs a mobile logistics unit to follow it so that inevitable repairs can be carried out. Armoured recovery vehicles are exceptionally expensive,which is why we only have a modified APC to do a basic recovery task...


It is,but it also goes against the whole idea of a monopoly. Commonality of parts may be considered when selecting vehicles,but this does not always mean that the vehicle is the best one for the Job.


Is there really much difference between the two?What advantage do tracked vehicles have in a hostile environment?
Manouverability? Gimmie 8x8 any day.Tracks break as often as tyres get punctured, but an 8x8 with 2 wheels missing can still get you home. A tank with one track is a large immobile target.
Protection? Tanks get blown up too. Tracks are not armour.


Only if we intend being invaded by a country with MBTs,or we intend going on missions where we will come up against an agressor with nothing but MBTs. The Israelis had MBTs in Lebanon. It was an issue solved by anti tank weapons. MBTs require a new type of tactic to the light infantry type we are used to..see point one.

on_ready_to_fire
17th November 2004, 00:27
Tracks break as often as tyres get punctured, but an 8x8 with 2 wheels missing can still get you home.

Tanks can travel for a distance without the track connected (i.e been blown off)
The tanks always operate (well should anyhow!) so as they mutually support each other so as unless it's a complete k-kill the tank may be able to drag itself out of the killzone, with just one track!This is true.

And just on the 8x8's getting out with 2 tires gone,that's terrain dependent again, on roads yes perfect usually may I add. Off-road 2 wheels and even one wheel gone can be a disaster.

Now saying that the apc should also be operating the same mutually supporting principle and get each other out of trouble. But if there are rpg, small arms etc. incoming I would rather be in a more armoured platform such as mbt with superior firepower/armour. APC's are a softer target and will not hold out as long.