Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The roles of armour

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    on_ready_to_fire
    Private 2*

  • on_ready_to_fire
    replied
    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.
    on_ready_to_fire
    Private 2*
    Last edited by on_ready_to_fire; 17 November 2004, 00:30.

    Leave a comment:

  • Goldie fish
    Tim Horgan

  • Goldie fish
    replied
    Originally posted by Come-quickly
    How about you just answer whats written?
    How about you read my replies..

    Originally posted by Goldie fish
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Come-quickly
    Commandant

  • Come-quickly
    replied
    How about you just answer whats written?

    Leave a comment:

  • Goldie fish
    Tim Horgan

  • Goldie fish
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • warlord
    Corporal

  • warlord
    replied
    Originally posted by Come-quickly
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Come-quickly
    Commandant

  • Come-quickly
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • on_ready_to_fire
    Private 2*

  • on_ready_to_fire
    replied
    "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.

    Leave a comment:

  • California Tanker
    My tank is bigger...

  • California Tanker
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Goldie fish
    Tim Horgan

  • Goldie fish
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • warlord
    Corporal

  • warlord
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Guest
    Guest

  • MORTAR DAN
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ias
    replied
    C-q, by the way, GM no longer owns Mowag, it is now owned by General Dynamics Land Systems.

    IAS

    Leave a comment:

  • California Tanker
    My tank is bigger...

  • California Tanker
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Goldie fish
    Tim Horgan

  • Goldie fish
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • yellowjacket
    Potential Liability

  • yellowjacket
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X