Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scorpion replacment?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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!
    Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

    Comment


    • 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/

      Comment


      • 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 .
        Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safe

        Comment


        • 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

          Comment


          • 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)!"

            Comment


            • 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...

              Comment


              • 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

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • 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.

                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


                      • 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; 18 January 2018, 03:07.

                        Comment


                        • 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.

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X