Tank Types

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 appliqé 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

1 2