Tank Types

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

Pages: 1 2

Aardwolf RE:Tank Types 1/14/2004 1:09:50 AM

>>Would it be worthwhile, if FCS gets fielded, to convert MBTs to specialised MOUT situations. If so, what would the best equipment load out be; e.g. remove maingun and replace with smaller one that could penetrate bunkers at a few hundred metres (more ammo on board. That would be the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. An M60 with a dozer blade and a short-barreled 165mm main gun that fired HEP (High Explosive-Plastic) demolition charges. They were all taken out of service several years back with no replacement.

Quote Reply

Sherwood RE:Tank Types 1/14/2004 3:26:00 AM

Thank you for the reply. Do you think it would be worthwhile fielding something similar?

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Tank Types 1/15/2004 12:03:23 AM

I do. In fact I have argued on some thread or another for a vehicle specifically designed as a heavy urban assault vehicle, a Mobile Battle Fortress, or MBF. It would have armor like a tank, with either a light cannon and a bunch of machine guns and grenade launchers, or perhaps a large calibur specialty gun for demolition purposes. Also, a large troop compartment with plenty of storage, and easier use of firing ports. The general idea is a vehicle specifically designed to support the infantry in urban assaults, by laying down fire, acting as a mobile bunker and supply vehicle, and cover for dismounted infantry.

Quote Reply

Sherwood Final Historian 1/15/2004 4:58:56 AM

I was thinking along similar lines, but having no real world experience with armour I was unsure as to the utility of such an approach. Would such a vehicle be more like a tank or an armed battle taxi.

Quote Reply

__nobody__ too big 1/15/2004 6:25:40 AM

So you want the armor of a MBT, the ability to carry troops of a APC and you want to have a main gun plus additional secondary weapons all in one piece of equipment? That tank would be too large to be used in urban combat. Just imagine you pick lets say a Bradley and you give him the armor of the abraham, so you need more engine power. Them you would need space to store all the ammo. And as you can't grow it vertically you have to either make it broader or more lengthy, so its twice the size. Either way it can only be used in very big streets. Although it might be a option to go through the houses in villages, I think it is a bit too risky to drive through a building. Although the russians have changed a couple of MBT to carry some infantary while taking less ammo. I think current tanks are safe in urban combat as long as the infantary is covering the roofs, the flanks and the rear. The infantary should advance in front of the tank, to scout it out and find what the tank is suposed to shot up.

Quote Reply

Sherwood RE:too big 1/15/2004 11:19:10 AM

Point well and truly taken about the weight factor. Let me paraphrase. You believe the current armour mix is good for MOUT when used properly, i.e. with dismointed infantry. This makes sense as it definitely worked last year. So, if the Abrams, Bradley and variations were replaced by the FCS family on the main battlefield, would you retain them for MOUT. Would you keep their current weapon load outs or change to more specialised sets of equipment. Would you modify them any other way, if so how?

Quote Reply

Aardwolf RE:Tank Types 1/20/2004 2:03:51 AM

>>Do you think it would be worthwhile fielding something similar Well you could reintroduce the M728s if they're still serviceable, and there are a whole bunch of surplus M60s thet could be converted. There've been retrofit kits available since the mid '80s that include higher-powered engines and composite appliq� armor, even side skirts. The main problem with all of that is that there probably haven't been any 165mm demolition guns produced for thirty or forty years, so the tooling may well be long gone.

Quote Reply

Sherwood RE:Aardwolf 1/20/2004 6:28:53 AM

Wouldn't it be better to refit the M1s and M2s if they are indeed replaced by FCS. Both have shown a highly effecive passive defense against AT weapons such as RPG in Iraq. The point being that in MOUT an armoured unit has fewer chances to choose its ground hence tactics based around active defenses may be less effective. Why waste the investment. Further to this, as the vehicles no longer require such high speed and acceleration it may be worthwhile to replace their power plants with diesel to cut down the logistical tail. Regards

Quote Reply

Heorot RE:Aardwolf 1/20/2004 7:16:41 AM

The old WW2 Churchill AVRE was equipped with a 290mm spigot mortar, known as the Petard which fired an 18 kg round over a range of about 75m. I assumed that modern AVRE's would have somthing similar and was quite surprised to find no mention of offensive armament on the modern versions.

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Tank Types 1/20/2004 8:53:06 AM

Why no do like the Germans: Make a good tank chassis, and hang all �the devises on that, You get a engeneer tank with dozer blade, repair and recovery vehikle and so on.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Tank Types 1/20/2004 11:11:32 AM

As far as I'm concerned cavalry has no business in MOUT in the first place. To figure it out just replace the guys with assault rifles and RPG's with guys with pikes and crossbows, the guys in tanks with guys wearing armor on horses. Yes, in the movies you see cavalry attacking people in cities, but in real life imagine what would happen to the poor fellows. You lose all the advantages of cavalry as soon as you move into the MOUT environment and bring all the disadvantages to bear. Iraq was a unique situation. Had we been facing well trained infantry rather than para-military guerrillas our tanks would have been slaughtered. Sorry, cavalry doesn't belong in urban terrain.

Quote Reply

Final Historian Too big-MBF 1/21/2004 1:36:24 PM

To re-address the issue of the MBF, perhaps I should liken it to a previous tank design. That was the Infantry Tank. Which was a heavy assult tank designed to provide fire support for infantry. However, that isn't exactly like what I meant. My idea for the MBF would essentially be a souped up APC, with all the armour of a M1 and the troop capacity of a APC. Its armament could be much lighter, and perhaps could even use modules that can be switched between battles. Its primary purpose is to act as a mobile barrier, supply center and essentially, bunker. Make it so that troops can easily fire from inside the vehicle. The idea is that it is designed to push down a street with infantry inside and right behind it. As for weight, it doesn't need a super heavy engine, as it doesn't really need to go over 35-40 mph, or even 30 mph.

Quote Reply

macawman Another idea for an Infantry tank to support Armour! 1/22/2004 1:00:29 PM

>>> I have liked the idea of the Mk19 on the M1 for a while. As for the beehive round, that's currently in development, as is a laser guided munition. Also, bring back HEP ammo. Like the idea of the .50 cal coax, though ammo storage would be a problem (but do we really need 14,400 rounds of coax?) and a counter weight would have to added to the gun barrel, but its doable. I like the idea of slaving the commander's weapon to the CITV, though I still like the .50 Cal. Some other additions that could be added for low intensity are grenade launchers mounted on the loader's hatch that can be fired internally like that can be fitted to the Leo and a camera placed on the rear of the tank so the driver can back up from his station without the TC having to unbutton. As for the turbine, you know my position (and a vast majority of the users of this tank) is to get a new turbine, not a noxious, loud, unresponsive diesel. Maybe what is needed is not a retrofitted M1, but another type of tank all together. It is obvious that the M1 series was NOT designed to support infantry, but for the infantry to support the tank. I believe that if the US Army attempts to modify the Abrams to fit the urban combat mission, it will turn out like the Bradley and become pretty much worthless in any mission. What is needed is to upgrade the M60A3 tank (which incorporates already many of the upgrades your want) for use in urban conflict fighting. The US Army is working under McNamarians concepts of one vehicle, multiple missions instead of one vehicle, one mission. The Abrams is unparalleled in its current mission, that of tank killer. Why try to make it something it isn't? Add a Bradley A3 CIV to an M60A3, put in a .50 cal coax (there's more than enough room on the 60, unlike the M1) and a Mk19 in the commander's cupola, put on Blazer Armor, add an overpressurized NBC system, rear mounted camera and loader's hatch grenade launcher and you have the perfect tank for urban warfare. It carries 63 105mm rounds and the design for beehive, HE and HEP are already out there so they don't have to be developed, it has an escape hatch in the floor, a dismount phone without a turbine, heavy armor and ballistic fire computer, LRF and thermals. It is relatively slow and can still use it's turret with infantry mounted on top. It is unlikely it will get into a tank on tank engagement in the city, so it would only have to carry a few SABOT, so the rest can be used to make new dorrs into buildings. Why mess with a tank that is outstanding in its current mission when it isn't needed. Add FBCBC2 so you don't to use radios.<<< ANDREW WILBRAHAM 1LT, AR Platoon Leader 2/B/1-67 Armor "DEATH DEALERS!"

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:Another idea for an Infantry tank to support Armour! 1/22/2004 2:26:38 PM

Hey LT, I was, among other things, Master Gunner of 1-64 AR (Desert Rogues). There is no way in hell I would ever want to be on an M60 ever again, thanks very much, even upgraded as you suggest. And I have absolutely no desire (I'm retired so maybe my opinion doesn't count) to take a tank protected by reactive armor into an urban environment. Grozny showed very clearly what happens when you do that. No, in an urban environment what you want is lots of nice, thick composite ceramic armor that can stand up to those RPG and medium AT warheads. As a side note, I would not consider the M1 to be a premier tank killer. The M1 is what a MBT is supposed to be. It is the arm of decision that drives through the hole the infantry punch in the bad guy's lines and wreaks havoc on the rear areas and then performs the pursuit phase of the battle. It is the premier offensive weapon on the battlefield today. In the defense the M1 is retained as your mobile reserve to counter-attack when needed, or block the holes that the enemy's infantry creates. Infantry and indirect fire should be, as they always have been, the biggest killers of the enemy on the battlefield.

Quote Reply

SpudmanWP RE:How about the M88 1/22/2004 3:00:31 PM

Think of something like the M88 that has a full length cab/cargo/troop area, hybid electric drives (to save space and add a little stealth), armored coupolas, and a combination of composite/spaced armor to provide non-reactive rpg/30mm cannon protection. Add a 120mm breech loading mortor turret in the front (ressesed so that the turret roof is no higher than the roof of the troop compartment) to provide assault firepower and nlos support..

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - March 17, 2010
	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