Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5

WDDavenport Yes, 120 mm mortar -- why not anti-aircraft missiles and mind roller also? 12/31/2003 4:14:14 PM

[ Now, if the tank is really in need of an indirect fire weapon, I'd add a external short 120mm mortar to the back of the turret. Fitted with cargo rounds, this baby'll give you useful indirect fire out to 4000m for clearing defiladed targets, roof tops and etc. ] Yes, mount a 120 mm mortar on the tanks. Why not also mount search and fire crontrol radars and surface to air missiles on all tanks, as well as mine roller or flail device. Yes, and while we're improving the tank, make the armore twice as thick all over and up the main gun size to at least 140mm, if not 152mm. Oh, and make sure to have a conpartment in the back of the tank to hold a nine man infantry squad.

Quote Reply

WDDavenport Northern guy, please stop maming sladerous accusations of antisemtism 12/31/2003 4:37:10 PM

[ RE:60mm mortar -- 12/27/2003 7:14:05 PM There seems to be a widespread belief on this thread that proper strategic planning can and will ensure that the appropriate amount of artillery will always be available as needed. I think this reflects a Western bias.] Then why assume that proper strategic planning can and will ensure that the appropriate amount of tanks or anything else will always be available as needed? I don't assume that the correct amount of artillery will always be available to US forces in all military emergencies. I do assume that combined arms combat teams are superior to excessively tank-centric military formations. [ While Davenport's rather unpleasant comments about things Isreali and/or Jewish show how he arrived at his conclusions,] Just because I say something critcal about the IDF doesn't make me an anti-Semite. Quit slandering me. [ I just don't see how everyone else is so sanguine about the vicissitudes of battle. Western forces have been able to control the strategic situation of their battlefields for the last fifty years or so. This might not always be the case.] The IDF was tank-centric during the 1973 war, and almost control of the battelfieds. This does not argue well for a tank-centric doctrine. [Just to give a couple of examples: If Nato had been forced to respond to a Russian attack in Europe during the cold war (absent all nukes on both sides) then Nato would have run out of artillery in a week or so if only because of lack of ammunition.] NATO might also have run out of tanks in a week or so. [ Basing your force structure around having lots of arty available doesn't mean that you necessarily will have it all the time under all conditions.] Basing your force structure around having lots more tanks and less artillery available doesn't mean that you necessarily will have it all the time under all conditions either. [Similarly, if America were to be engaged in a land battle with Chinese forces, then soon the Americans would begin to feel uneasy about their ability to conduct combat without their customary arty.] Why would the US be without its "customary arty" in a war with China? The US Army was not deprived of or denied its artillery during the Kroean War of 1950-53. [When Western forces have conducted battle operations in the last generation or so they have ensured that they had sufficient arty relative to the task to make sure that there was no serious shortage. As long as you take 6 months (GW1) or 3 months (GW2)to set up your battlefield, this is acheivable.] Tanks could also be in short supply if a large number of tanks have to be sent to a distant theater. [ And in GW2 it was a close run thing.] No, wrong, not at all. No shortage of artillery ammunition in Iraaq in 2003. [Certainly, if Iran mobilises it's army and the local shiite population against the Coalition forces in Iraq you can bet there will be plenty of units without their requested artillery support.] That would be a losing bet. [ It may be a foolhardy move for Iran in the long run ] As well as the short run [ but beleive me, for a short while at least it would very bad for American forces.] Nope, I don't believe you. The Iraquis couldn't penetrate very far past the Iran-Iraq border in their war with Saddam's crummy army. I don't think Iranian conventional land forces can do much against the US in 2004, or whenever. If you want a Shiite uprising against Coalition forces, why don't you go there and and organize the jihad? [Israel will have 3 to 6 hours to respond not months. I just don't see how adding an internal mortar to their tanks is, by itself, a tactical or strategic disadvantage.] It is a disadvantage to think that tanks mounting 60mm mortars are a subsitute for the proper amount of artiller in one's combined arms mix. In regard to mobilization time, why would mechanized Israeli artillery units take longer to mobilize than tanks?

Quote Reply

WDDavenport Opps! maming sladerous = making slanderous 12/31/2003 7:46:03 PM

Happy New Year

Quote Reply

Artfull-Bodger RE:Merkava Mk V the finest tank in the world 1/1/2004 3:27:39 AM

how can you have a strategic 60mm mortar?? the whole point of these weapons is close fire support, illumination , additional smoke, has nobody noticed the rather large number of machine guns sprouting of israeli tanks? its all part of the fire support methods they use! israel considers a tanks job to include fighting large numbers of infantry and in those circumstances the ability to use a large array of fragmentation , automatic and high explosives makes the tank more effective! and if your wondering why a 60mm just think how much ammo you could carry if it was an 81mm for example! sustained fire is better than ne or two bug bangs!!

Quote Reply

bsl RE:60mm mortar -- BSL 1/1/2004 3:41:20 PM

Horsesoldier, My apologies for my absence. This,particular thread got lost in my absurd list of correspondence. My bad. -Force structure No, I do not question the value of artillery or deny the problems the IDF had a generation ago with overreliance on tanks, to the detriment of combined arms. We have no argument in this. The point I'm trying to make is distinct. What I'm saying is that the history of warfare - both the specific history of the IDF AND the general history, specifically including the history of American warfighting - shows that, time and again, tanks wind up in situations where support is simply not available. This is NOT a consequence of bad planning. We have nearly a hundred years of history of tanks in combat to look at. It's just a common fact of life in real combat. Infantry is blown away. Artillery has been scragged, or has higher priority fire missions. Air support isn't answering the phone. This is the lesson of the history of AMERICAN armor, since WW1. Add to this the peculiar circumstances in which Israel exists and you simply can not credibly claim that the IDF will NOT face situations where small groups of tanks will not have to deal with the facts on the ground, by themselves, without support. I continue to wonder how you can blithely write off the lessons of 1973, and pretend that Israel can wave it's arms about and produce a large, standing army or make the potential gross disadvantages in numbers it can face at a war start disappear. Are you arguing that intelligence can be perfect and the political end of things guaranteed to react correctly and in a timely fashion every time? That's certainly not something the American military believes. -The "folks under no armor at all" include infantry and a LOT of artillery. AMERICAN artillery is not all under armor. Do you believe all Israeli artillery comes with armor? I repeat, you continue to pretend the situation on the ground is grossly different from what actually obtains. The nature of the strategic environment means that Israel has light forces on it's borders at any given moment. It can only reinforce when and if a conclusion is drawn that threat levels are markedly raised. AND, to do so they must make a simulataneous decision that reinforcing will not, in itself, cause unacceptable political consequences. Let's overlook, for a moment, that ANY general mobilization hits the Israeli economy like a MAJOR recession hits the American economy. Take my word that the threat of causing a major recession, in America, makes every American politicians INCLUDING the President take notice. There are other reasons to be reluctant to order general mobilization. One of those reasons is that when Israel DOES so, Washington tends to go ballistic and become very angry. The "default" position for American reaction to this is to hammer Israel unless the POTUS has come to a firm conclusion that war is inevitable. And, OUR intelligence tends not to come to this conclusion before the shooting starts. WE tend to read events as volatile and the position Washington tends to take is that Israel should NOT mobilize so as not to risk setting off hostilities. Whether you believe this or not doesn't really make much difference. That this is the world in which Israel lives is not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of fact. And, when they sit down and try to write design criteria for weapons, they take this sort of thing into account. They really have no choice.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:60mm mortar -- BSL 1/1/2004 3:43:55 PM

I'm not saying that it is useful in every situation. But, when I think of how wars can start, I recall the situation in 1973, when small units were attacked by vastly larger forces, and were without reinforcement and, sometimes, support, for hours, even days. Any setting in which a tank may find itself without infantry and artillery support is one in which the crew will be grateful for some way to hit infantry under cover.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:60mm mortar -- 1/1/2004 3:46:59 PM

northernguy, The thing is, *American* experience shows the potential utility for indirect fire weapons in tanks. How many reports of actual American tanks which found themselves without support are necessary to show that there may just be some reason to give tankers a way to hit infantry not in line of sight? The criticism about bad doctrine, force mix, etc. isn't without merit. But, it's beside the point. Even with a metaphysically perfect force structure, real battles will produce circumstances where that kind of capability is useful.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Yes, 120 mm mortar -- why not anti-aircraft missiles and mind roller also? 1/1/2004 4:07:41 PM

"Why not also mount search and fire crontrol radars and surface to air missiles on all tanks, as well as mine roller or flail device." Some Russian tanks appear to HAVE some sort of radar associated with anti-missile defenses. Surface to surface missiles have been standard equipment on both Soviet and American infantry carrying light tanks for a generation or more. (Bradleys and BMPs.) Some Russian tanks have had surface to surface missiles for many years. America has experimented with such systems (missiles fired through the main gun) and actually deployed one such system. Anti-air missiles? Why the Kilroy not? This one is coming, sooner or later. Something the size of a Stinger? Certainly coming, in one form or another. Mostly a matter of becoming satisfied with sensors. A question of situational awareness. If you can be sure the tankers will see the airborne threat, there's no good reason for them not to have the ability to shoot back. You could improvise a system based on Stinger right now, given an order. American designers have been playing with 140mm guns for some years, now, as have the designers in several other countries. Didn't you know?

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Northern guy, please stop maming sladerous accusations of antisemtism 1/1/2004 4:09:21 PM

Finished, Mr. Davenport? Do some reading. Your criticism is dated. There's a basis for criticism of Israeli force mix in 1973. In 1973. If you think nothing was learned, and nothing done, over the THIRTY years since then, you're hopelessly behind the curve.

Quote Reply

northernguy RE:60mm mortar -- bsl 1/1/2004 5:12:40 PM

BSL: I couldn't agree more! All military forces will occasionally find themselves where arty may occassionally not be available as required. If indirect fire support capability can be provided independantly of artillery, at no great cost, I just don't see what's wrong with that. All the force structures, operations planning, logistical capability or whatever will do you no good if you are prohibited from using your artillery because of the rules of engagement. Israel, almost every day, sends it's tanks and infantry into combat situations where they are not able to use artillery because of concern about collateral damage and political optics. Sometimes war just doesn't go according to theory. Added capability without any significant penalty is _not_ a disadvantage. I also agree with your comments about Israel's war fighting strategy. Since they use their tanks almost every day and seldom if ever use their artillery outside of full scale war, they inevitably will end up with a preponderance of exposed armour and infantry which will on occasion need indirect fire support until artillery can be delivered. Every Israeli battle has been a victory for them despite being vastly outnumbered in every category. Some members of this board heap scorn on the strategy, tactics and capabilities of the IDF in those same battles even though they won. This makes me think that there may be more involved with those contributers posts than just military analysis. Also some contributors just don't seem to have a grasp on reality such as denying that the 150,000 American troops tops that are in Iraq would have trouble dealing with an armed uprising of millions of shiites at the same time as the Iranian armed forces attacked. I'm sure that eventually the situation would get under control but I'm equally sure for a considerable period of time there would be American units urgently requesting artillery support and not able to get it. Such a scenario is exactly the situation where the ability for some of the armour to provide some indirect fire support or quickly convert to very heavy duty Bradley equivalent for the purpose of rescuing pinned down troops would be welcomed by those troops even if not by some of this board's posters.

Quote Reply

gandalf RE:Yes, 120 mm mortar -- why not anti-aircraft missiles and mind roller also? 1/4/2004 11:19:38 PM

Hey, great idea WD! Cheap SAMs like SA7/14/16s or that new sokor one. Mount it on top of the commanders independent viewer. Since most tanks have digital electric drives, all you have to add is the slew to cue systems from an avenger. Voila! Minced meat for any low flying UFO. Actually, this might be the least expensive way to go for those expecting to fight US backed forces, since the US and their allies will undoubtedly gain air superiority in most forseen battles. That means anything flying is a US allied plane or chopper. It'd drive those air to mud guys nuts if every target they went after could shoot back.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us