Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
They are, but I wouldn't be surprised that Congress deep-sixes it directly or indirectly. Largely because Congress is going back to its 'cut the military to the bone' antics again. That or have the same situation as what led to the Sheridan.

No. ATGMs are not as useful as they once were, especially as new composite and laminate armor start being deployed. Also, please note that M4 Shermans -at the end of their US life cycle- was about 30-38 metric tons in weight... and they simply had hell when it comes to opposed beach landings. Hell, the US Marines lost a good portion of their tank forces in such assaults because they couldn't get around in the sand fast enough.

From my understanding of US light tank doctrine, light tanks are supposed to be part of 'recon by fire' operations, basically the equivalent of poking a hornet's nest with a stick. This, predictably, requires a punchy gun (note that the M41 Bulldog had a 76mm gun... similar to those used on Shermans), enough armor to survive against anything less than light cannon (so, essentially most autocannon and below), have plenty of range (because you need to have enough fuel to run around poking the enemy), and speed to get the hell out of dodge when the enemy response in force.


This is false, I'm afraid. Even semi-competent enemies with some basic IADS and E-War can make drones impudent rather quickly. That's why I'm foreseeing that drones' time as a weapon system is going to be very short-lived, as this level of competence will simply proliferate to the point that it won't work on anyone. We're getting to the point that for drones, you'll need AGIs to counter them... and we're out of AGIs.

Also, for those who would think SEAD/DEAD would help in these circumstances, please don't forget that history has told us that against anything resembling semi-competent in terms of IADS doctrine and competence, the IADS can (and will) give the opposing airforce a literal hell (as shown in Vietnam and when Egypt took the Sinai in one of the many Israeli-Arab Wars) or complete their IADS objectives with minimal loss of material while making the opposing force look like they're having Yakity Sax as their motif and basically run out of ARMs (Serbia). Even Arab-competent IADS can give a surprising fight against competent airforces (Gulf War 1).

That's with mid-Cold War tech and doctrine understanding, mind you. Not the 'SHORAD/AAA Systems are now bubbles of no ordinance zones' that have started to show up in every military able to buy the capability.
They actually plan to increase the budget after FY2023
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
They actually plan to increase the budget after FY2023
That's a good two years, and politically things change quickly in two years, so I wouldn't be surprised if those plans are dashed. Surprised that they aren't dashed, but not surprised if they are.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
That's a good two years, and politically things change quickly in two years, so I wouldn't be surprised if those plans are dashed. Surprised that they aren't dashed, but not surprised if they are.
Already set for FY2023
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder

A tank officer telling you why tanks will still be in use.

Also, the US is actually competent compared to Russia and are ahead.
We have factored in drones.
Drones are only as good at AT if they are not being jammed, or being tracked.

Against competent militaries the drones are not that useful like in Ukraine
It's not a bad video, but he seems to be focusing on 'missile vs tank' 'missile vs APS' and not factoring in drone-spotted arty.

Tank vs missile is a fight APS can win right now, or at least break even on.

However, drone+SPG seems to have more value than a traditional 'heavy armor' from what we are seeing in Ukraine, though I'll admit Russia's showing with their armor has been massively below expectations.
They are, but I wouldn't be surprised that Congress deep-sixes it directly or indirectly. Largely because Congress is going back to its 'cut the military to the bone' antics again. That or have the same situation as what led to the Sheridan.

No. ATGMs are not as useful as they once were, especially as new composite and laminate armor start being deployed. Also, please note that M4 Shermans -at the end of their US life cycle- was about 30-38 metric tons in weight... and they simply had hell when it comes to opposed beach landings. Hell, the US Marines lost a good portion of their tank forces in such assaults because they couldn't get around in the sand fast enough.

From my understanding of US light tank doctrine, light tanks are supposed to be part of 'recon by fire' operations, basically the equivalent of poking a hornet's nest with a stick. This, predictably, requires a punchy gun (note that the M41 Bulldog had a 76mm gun... similar to those used on Shermans), enough armor to survive against anything less than light cannon (so, essentially most autocannon and below), have plenty of range (because you need to have enough fuel to run around poking the enemy), and speed to get the hell out of dodge when the enemy response in force.


This is false, I'm afraid. Even semi-competent enemies with some basic IADS and E-War can make drones impudent rather quickly. That's why I'm foreseeing that drones' time as a weapon system is going to be very short-lived, as this level of competence will simply proliferate to the point that it won't work on anyone. We're getting to the point that for drones, you'll need AGIs to counter them... and we're out of AGIs.

Also, for those who would think SEAD/DEAD would help in these circumstances, please don't forget that history has told us that against anything resembling semi-competent in terms of IADS doctrine and competence, the IADS can (and will) give the opposing airforce a literal hell (as shown in Vietnam and when Egypt took the Sinai in one of the many Israeli-Arab Wars) or complete their IADS objectives with minimal loss of material while making the opposing force look like they're having Yakity Sax as their motif and basically run out of ARMs (Serbia). Even Arab-competent IADS can give a surprising fight against competent airforces (Gulf War 1).

That's with mid-Cold War tech and doctrine understanding, mind you. Not the 'SHORAD/AAA Systems are now bubbles of no ordinance zones' that have started to show up in every military able to buy the capability.
I think predicting drones falling out of favor is reaching, at least until we get laser systems on armored chasis's.

Still think drones+SPGs are likely more useful than 'traditional' heavy armor going forward, though I think that light tanks with APS are likely to make a comeback.

I think heavy armor will have to look at either being more a heavily armored SPG with drone spotter, or a heavily armored AA systems with ground attack ability organically built in.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
It's not a bad video, but he seems to be focusing on 'missile vs tank' 'missile vs APS' and not factoring in drone-spotted arty.

Tank vs missile is a fight APS can win right now, or at least break even on.

However, drone+SPG seems to have more value than a traditional 'heavy armor' from what we are seeing in Ukraine, though I'll admit Russia's showing with their armor has been massively below expectations.
I think predicting drones falling out of favor is reaching, at least until we get laser systems on armored chasis's.

Still think drones+SPGs are likely more useful than 'traditional' heavy armor going forward, though I think that light tanks with APS are likely to make a comeback.

I think heavy armor will have to look at either being more a heavily armored SPG with drone spotter, or a heavily armored AA systems with ground attack ability organically built in.
SPG is only useful if you have horrible counter battery.
The US has mastered ISR with drones.
And we can fire on the arty quick.
So yeah.
No tanks are still a valuable thing
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Already set for FY2023
So picture me surprised.
It's not a bad video, but he seems to be focusing on 'missile vs tank' 'missile vs APS' and not factoring in drone-spotted arty.

Tank vs missile is a fight APS can win right now, or at least break even on.

However, drone+SPG seems to have more value than a traditional 'heavy armor' from what we are seeing in Ukraine, though I'll admit Russia's showing with their armor has been massively below expectations.
I think predicting drones falling out of favor is reaching, at least until we get laser systems on armored chasis's.

Still think drones+SPGs are likely more useful than 'traditional' heavy armor going forward, though I think that light tanks with APS are likely to make a comeback.

I think heavy armor will have to look at either being more a heavily armored SPG with drone spotter, or a heavily armored AA systems with ground attack ability organically built in.
... you forget that this is not happening entirely in a vacuum either. Those tanks are going to be escorted by C-RAM capable SHORAD systems, backed by their own artillery who likely have their own counter-battery radars tracking (and calculating) enemy artillery location(s) and sending it to the nearest artillery unit to obliterate, so on and so forth.
I think anti missile systems will eventually improve to a point to where shells or some kind of mag rail weapon dominates.
At the minimum, we're likely going to see Battletech-style AMS systems where large single missiles/rockets are basically useless half the time... to Bolo-Esque 'launch hundreds of missiles and only a handful get through' ADS.
 

Carrot of Truth

War is Peace
At the minimum, we're likely going to see Battletech-style AMS systems where large single missiles/rockets are basically useless half the time... to Bolo-Esque 'launch hundreds of missiles and only a handful get through' ADS.


I think missiles will get really small basically some sort of micro missile that replaces conventional bullets in small arms.

EDIT: Probably should make a thread specifically for speculative weapons
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
I think missiles will get really small basically some sort of micro missile that replaces conventional bullets in small arms.

EDIT: Probably should make a thread specifically for speculative weapons
The problem with that is that explosive power correlates to warhead size and micro missiles will also have pretty poor range besides. You're better off using electrothermal chemical guns and small-scale (i.e. Hydra or similar sized) missiles at one point... though if hypersonic missiles/rockets get to the infantry range, then things get interesting until UV (or X-Ray) pulse lasers get deployed in-mass.

Though, you're right that a speculation thread is needed.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
But there's no sexy short barreled, wide diameter Demolition Gun that fires seventy pound HESH rounds. 😢

That was really never on the table; if you look at the cancelled replacement for the CEV, it was more of a sidegrade as it didn't have the demo cannon either.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
I'm not sure if this should even go under the tanks thread or the warbirds thread... o_O

Seems Mike Sparks is even more insane than I thought, I will just post this here.

 

GROGNARD

Well-known member
Don't know if I've brought this up before: The General Dynamics Land Systems EFV.
Marine APC par excellence. 31-38 built before cancelled by the USMC & obama.
"overall project too expensive" aka "every USMC Colonel that USMC transfers thru has to reinvent entire project from zero, thus tripling the original price."
_0villa_31_-1.jpg


As shown on R. Lee Ermey's "MAIL CALL"
Great vehicle, so good, that the Chinese made a decent copy from the blueprints they 'bought' from the Obama admin.


sorry to bring this up AGAIN, but I saw yet another YT video with laughably BAD info. Let me make this clear: my source worked for GDLS. I sat in and went for amphib rides in one of the first ones built. At the time, I was trying to finish a college degree so I could snag a sweet job with GDLS. even tho I never worked for GDLS, the EFV was a personal favorite.

The truth is the original program plan was a fully developed/tested/proven vehicle for less than a $Billion. The original 6 EFVs could do 50MPH on land, 35MPH in water, and deploy to a hostile beach from nearly 40 miles offshore... all of which exceeded the original Contract specs. They had Armor and Countermeasures (electronics/flares/smoke/chaff) for defense, plus a 30mm chain gun w/ coax 7.62 MG. The vehicle had an 8:1 maintenance hour ratio.

The original EFV was within 30 days of completing the program, was even under budget, in Sept. 2003 (when it was officially named the EFV) when TPTB decided that all of the nuts and bolts needed to be Metric and EVERYTHING needed to be tracked for "Logistical Planning". You can thank the Pentagon and Politicians for the $2.1 Billion bloat. But then with less than 30 days to contract completion, the Pentagon/Politicians moved the goal posts and kept moving them for the next several years. It wasn't until AFTER the Pentagon deliberately induced 'mission creep' that the maintenance schedule went to shit and guys died in testing.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Argentine MM38 Exocet Anti-Ship Missile Launcher, Mounted on a Truck. It was apparently powered by a yuge old German built generator, and had a Searchlight equipped as well as a French built RASIT Radar System that some vacationing French Military Engineers happened to work on as a hobby coincidentally.

Since the Exocet wasn't designed for use from land and it was basically an improvised vehicle, the first two attempts at firing the missiles ended in failure with a misfire and a failure to lock onto target respectively. However the third attempt resulted in the final Exocet missile striking and damaging the County-class Destroyer HMS Glamorgan which was located eighteen miles offshore. The ship attempted to maneuver out of the way of the missile causing a 'skidding' hit along the hull that detonated the helicopter on board exploded and fourteen sailors were killed but the ship survived with the fires being put out several hours later. The ship, perhaps ironically, was repaired and later sold to the Chilean Navy a few years later.

 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Baden-Powell would have been horrified though. He was vehemently against the Scouts being any sort of cadet organization.
Uhhhh.
What?
You do know what Boy Scouts was founded for right?
To allow Boys to prepare to be scouts for the mikitary and mikitaty duty
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Uhhhh.
What?
You do know what Boy Scouts was founded for right?
To allow Boys to prepare to be scouts for the mikitary and mikitaty duty

The intent of the Scouts was to raise boys to be men of good character and outdoor skills, including skills relevant to military service, and yet Lord Baden-Powell firmly rejected the idea of Scouts as a specifically pre-military program, as an explicit contrast with several other youth movements of the day which *were* military in nature.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top