tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post2117768363833441943..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: Heavy armoured fighting vehicles for EuropeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-47082221962584401012009-06-28T15:55:00.132+02:002009-06-28T15:55:00.132+02:00His concept sounds a lot like a replay of Hue City...His concept sounds a lot like a replay of Hue City, only with large quantities of enemy ATGMs.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-11393265616969866052009-06-28T07:42:17.586+02:002009-06-28T07:42:17.586+02:00Strykers are transport/carrier vehicles, not meant...Strykers are transport/carrier vehicles, not meant to fight themselves voluntarily.<br /><br />His combat model was the use of infantry dismounting from Stryker, detecting enemies and calling for support fires.<br />That's halfway credible in near-static and in delay combat, but it's simply no substitute for tanks (no matter how well the microchips are) because it's an evolution of infantry, not an evolution of cavalry.<br />There's no high tempo in a methodical detection & bombardment of opposition (unless you insert by air, but that's risky).S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-90974413540828772662009-06-28T06:00:33.201+02:002009-06-28T06:00:33.201+02:00Mike,
You can't really compare Israeli's ...Mike,<br /><br />You can't really compare Israeli's conflict with Hezbollah, and the use of Strykers in Iraq. Hezbollah was a LOT more heavily armed, with many ATGMs and advanced RPGs. Strykers used in the same circumstances would've taken heavy casualties. <br /><br />Strykers are certainly useful, but they are not survivable against repeated ATGM hits.B.Smittyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12650152449414871058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-9590031225931777782009-06-27T19:45:26.305+02:002009-06-27T19:45:26.305+02:00"We're going to have a significant weakne..."We're going to have a significant weakness in our defences. Just because we limit ourselves to 50 ton MBTs doesn't mean our enemy will do the same. What you're doing in my mind is basically assume that the enemy has some significant disadvantage, which if I remember correctly is something you explicitely don't do, ever. ;)"<br /><br />More isn't always better. 'Better' means 'more close to the optimum compromise' instead.<br /><br />NATO moved its frontier to the East - this means the terrain changes as well. They still have the same weather cycles there as in WW2, albeit a much better road network. The distances are also great - we don't talk of a few kilometers average distance between cities any more.<br /><br />The cardinal problems of the 55+ ton tanks persist, and have in part become more relevant than ever for us;<br />- high mean maximum and nominal ground pressure<br />- high fuel consumption (ceteris paribus almost proportional to weight)<br />- large silhouette/target area<br /><br />The new terrain means a new optimum compromise.<br /><br />Leading armour experts have written publicly (before APS became able to degrade APFSDS) that about 50 tons weight would today be necessary to achieve a very high armour level, so my weight range is actually not dangerously low.<br /><br />The 40-50 ton range (it may be even less for the recovery version) is also a compromise because it's a family; several non-MBT variants are included and logistical considerations prefer a rather lower weight for them.<br />An armour brigade is more than the sum of its MBTs, and its performance therefore influenced by compromises made for the other vehicles.<br /><br />"So instead of depending on armor, you survive by dispersal, deploy by networking, and win by precision weaponry. Which is how the microchip replaces the tank."<br /><br />Absolutely not. The FCS/NCW/RMA concept may work fine in slow-moving combat, but it's merely an upgrade, no replacement, in fast-moving forms of combat.<br />Dismounted dispersed forward observers don' have offensive thrust and speed.<br /><br />You seem to have missed the whole 2GW/3GW debate if you seriously believe that NCW/RMA is an alternative to tanks.<br /><br />"Dismounted" = 3-6 km/h cruise speed, reduced to <2 km/h in combat. Tanks (negating most threats by protection) can dash through a battlefield at 15-50 km/h.<br />Their tactics need to evolve, of course.<br />There's almost nothing that dispersed FO infantry can do against a well-synchronized 10-20 minute battlefield penetration by armoured combat teams with plenty multispectral smoke, EW and other combat support.<br />I have looked into this for months.S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-6926929714271934572009-06-27T16:43:34.444+02:002009-06-27T16:43:34.444+02:00I feel there is a greater need to exploit the revo...I feel there is a greater need to exploit the revolution in communications brought on by the microchip and the flexibility of a network of platforms against modern threats, rather than the internal combustion engine. Against a smart bomb, armor is meaningless, but the flexibility of fast wheeled vehicles is perfect in this role.<br /><br />The logistics of an armor centric force is becoming unsustainable, especially for expeditionary-forces such as the American and European. Even in frontline areas such as Lebanon and Palestine, the Israeli's, with a much smaller supply chain, hasn't found their heavy Merkavas particular effective against insurgent (notably in the 2006 Lebanon War with Hezbollah), but American Strykers in Iraq are well respected. The Israeli's had an opportunity to purchase Stryker in the early decade but chose instead to upgrade their tracked IFVs. The results speak for themselves with the US prevailing in Iraq and Israel consistently bogged down in wars of attrition against a greatly underequipped foe.<br /><br />The Stryker and other wheeled vehicles are more of a mindset instead of just a weapons platform. The idea that you depend more on firepower, rather than being tied down to a vehicle which may be increasingly vulnerable to missile threats, especially ATGM fired from stealthy UAVs. But depending more on these IFVs, especially on their parasite infantry as your primary weapon, you can ensure something survives to strike back or strike first.<br /><br />So instead of depending on armor, you survive by dispersal, deploy by networking, and win by precision weaponry. Which is how the microchip replaces the tank.Mike Burlesonhttp://newwars.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-26211014528333234022009-06-27T11:32:18.536+02:002009-06-27T11:32:18.536+02:00This post raises a couple of questions in my mind....This post raises a couple of questions in my mind. First of all, what's wrong with our 60-70 ton MBTs? They were designed with slightly different threat scenarios in mind, yes, but that situation hasn't changed much imo. You said it yourself, territorial defence is still our main job. And the last time tanks were used in large numbers by western forces was the invasion of Iraq, and they did indeed face armoured resistance. Using tanks in low intensity conflicts is questionable at best, because it escalates the conflict to a point where it isn't low intensity anymore. If, however, you absolutely need to use MBTs, you can still add the required components on an ad-hoc basis, wich is basically the Tank Urban Survival Kit the Americans use for their Abrams. Since you will rarely use tanks in LICs, it's way cheaper than specifically designing heavy tracked vehicles for a task they should not do in the first place.<br /><br />In addition, you don't address the weaknesses of the FCS. Yes, your tank is supposed to be 10-15 tons heavier, but that's still fairly light compared to our current models. A regular MBT can be taken out by unusually strong IEDs, what you're giving the LIC opponent with a 50 ton tank is basically a tactical advantage. Not to mention the fact that this new 50 ton MBT would also need to accomplish everything our old MBTs did, which is the defence of our territory. How exactly will our 50 ton model be able to face the old-school 70 ton models of our hypothetical opponents? We're going to have a significant weakness in our defences. Just because we limit ourselves to 50 ton MBTs doesn't mean our enemy will do the same. What you're doing in my mind is basically assume that the enemy has some significant disadvantage, which if I remember correctly is something you explicitely don't do, ever. ;)<br /><br />And lastly, something not related to your idea, but something which really bothers me: how exactly are we going to procure arms on a European level? Clearly we can't all build our own military vehicles, it would be redundant. But transnational cooperation also has huge disadvantages, chief among these the fact that any European defence project will inevitably be some sort of huge compromise, the lowest common denominator in terms of what those vehicles are supposed to do. What we need to do, then, is find a way to bring our national militaries in line. They need to be aligned to be fighting the same kinds of war, to expect the same threat scenarios and to use the same doctrine accordingly. That is a huge task. But since defence procurement on a national level is already more focused on what the industry wants to produce than what the military actually needs, European defence procurement will inevitably be so far away from our operational needs that it's going to hurt us more than it's going to do us good, and will be expensive in the process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com