What would u like to see on a new SAF light tank?
-
Those tow missiles stand no chance of penetrating the frontal armor of an M1, but being air launched, the likelyhood is that they come in from the top, rear or side... Hence the armoured orge's weak point. They are only pretty tuff on the front.Originally posted by SlowPoke:I thought the AGM-114 Hellfire can make mincemeat out of an M1A2. If still not powerful enough, how about an AGM-65 Maverick? -
On The Way, heavy tanks pushing north will be restricted to a few well defined axes by the terrain. These axes (NS highway, major trunk roads) will become a killing field of airstrike corridors, minefields, tank traps, dragon's teeth, dug-in ambush positions and artillery fire. The roads are nothing but traps, since there are few enough of them to defend in detail. I do not care how much armor your tanks have. If the enemy knows what you are going to do, they will kill you.
That is why advancing through the jungle is necessary, something that heavy tanks will find extremely difficult. That is why we are investing so much in tracked logistics vehicles like the ATTC. The ultimate protection in war is deception and evasion, not Chobham. Hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle attacks are only worthwhile if you have American-style overwhelming superiority. Again, we are not the Americans.
As far as heavy armor in FIBUA is concerned, I have my doubts. It is not armor that protects tanks in urban terrain, but accompanying infantry. If there is no infantry support, your tanks will be destroyed regardless of the thickness of their armor, by mines, top or rear attacks and close assaults. If the infantry are doing their job, your armor will not even be tested by enemy fire. Heavy armor gives a greater degree of tactical flexibility and "forgiveness", but it cannot replace combined arms cooperation.
Regarding ATGMs, I find it strange that tankers only talk about the front armor of the M1 series. Is the enemy restricted to shooting you in the front? Maybe in the desert where you can see where the enemy is and point your front at him. But in the jungle or cities where you do not know where the enemy is, I wonder how you are going to keep your front to the enemy. But again, I am an ignorant infantryman. It is just that when I walk around in the jungle, I do not seriously expect to only be shot from the front in a war. Why do tankers count on it so much?
On The Way, you have a very armor-centric view of operations to me. I probably have a very infantry-centric view of operations to you. The best strategy is probably combined arms, with our CE, Arty and other brethren as well. Whatever tank SAF eventually chooses, let's hope they bear that in mind. -
Basically because tankers are taught to use their heaviest armor at all times in all situtations. If you studied armour movement and formations, they are actually forumlated to allow an armoured unit to move presenting their heaviest armour to cover each other at all times. In a sense, while the tanks do nto have armour in all areas, they advance in such a way they cover each other's back, making it difficult for anybody to get in a shot in a weak area. How did you think the Israelis and Americans can advance their tanks into urban areas and still emerge generally unscathed? Your unit formation and covering each others back is extremely important in armour, no lone rangers here. You frontal armour is extremely important, it is prehaps the most important form of protection you can employ against your enemy.Originally posted by dkhoo:Regarding ATGMs, I find it strange that tankers only talk about the front armor of the M1 series. Is the enemy restricted to shooting you in the front? Maybe in the desert where you can see where the enemy is and point your front at him. But in the jungle or cities where you do not know where the enemy is, I wonder how you are going to keep your front to the enemy. But again, I am an ignorant infantryman. It is just that when I walk around in the jungle, I do not seriously expect to only be shot from the front in a war. Why do tankers count on it so much?
On the other hand, I'm not sure what tatics the Arabs and Ruskies use, but it seems to be just chionging in peacemeal and being big and bad with swarms of tanks, and hence their losses are higher out of proportion to the actual quality of their equipment. A combination fo bad tatics and equipment litters the battlefield with wrecked soviet-bloc tanks. -
Armour is extremely important, there is just no excuse for that. History has show many times that the heavy trade off for armor for mobility has almost always resulted in disaster for amroured design. That's because you must expect to get hit if you are dricing around in a multiton armoured unit, it's no LSV that relies on dodging and siamzing to survive.
Even if we are not using multi-ton MBTs, the new armoured unit must at least be able to turn off RPGs from the front and the sides, and 90+mm and light ATGMs from the front. Anything less and you might as well go in in some APC with a 105mm turret. -
Ah yes, the age-old argument between weight, protection, speed firepower. The arguments between these issues can keep going until the cows come home... Instead of letting it degrade to that, may i suggest that we prioritize the issues? Keeping in mind the type of terrain these new-fangled SM-1 replacements are supposed to operate in, what would u put in order? for me, i would put it as:
1. weight (most impt)
2. protection
3. firepower
4. speed. (last, but not least)
I am shooting in the dark, since i was not a tankee and am not familiar with what kind of terrain SAF tanks are most expected to operate in. Perhaps the kind ex-tankee fellows could lend us a hand here?
Please feel free to add to the list.... e.g. belly-load, physical size, cup-holders, leather seats, etc.... -
zigzag,
The armor triad is typically phrased as Mobility, Protection and Firepower. Mobility encompasses weight, range and speed, among other things. Protection takes physical size and stealth into account. Firepower includes belly load and weapon selection. A balance is needed between all three factors.
However, while the armor triad is often quoted by tankers, it only covers the technical design of an armored vehicle. There are other equally important factors that are typically the purview of staff officers. These are Cost and Sustainability. Cost does not only refer to purchase cost, but also manning requirements, life cycle costs, maintenance costs and upgradability. Sustainability includes factors like maintainability, reliability and logistical burden.
There is also a catch-all category sometimes referred to as Human Factors, which includes things like comfort, psychological impact, user-friendliness and training requirement. I find that these tend to step beyond the actual vehicle design to unrelated things, though.
Of course, there is a lot of overlap between these six main criteria. For example, range and ammo load are also Sustainability problems since they affect the logistical requirements of the vehicle. But this is the normal schema I find used to discuss armored vehicle design.
I would not place any factor above the others. There needs to be a balance. That is the whole idea. You must have some of all of them.
That said, I feel that too little emphasis is given to Cost. We must have equipment and doctrines that are suitable for our unique situation. The optimum strategy when you are poor is not simply a scaled down version of the strategy when you are rich. We are not a very large armed force or economy and we need to have some restraint when making equipment purchases (not just armored vehicle purchases, but aircraft, etc.) I am sure that is already being done, but I am still worried. Some recent acquisitions have seemed rather costly to me. -
Depends on how far back you want to go......during ww2 German tanks were less armoured and had smaller guns then the Russian army and even the French army.During 1 of the Isreali wars they had less armoured and smaller guns then their Arab counterparts also.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Armour is extremely important, there is just no excuse for that. History has show many times that the heavy trade off for armor for mobility has almost always resulted in disaster for amroured design. That's because you must expect to get hit if you are dricing around in a multiton armoured unit, it's no LSV that relies on dodging and siamzing to survive.
Even if we are not using multi-ton MBTs, the new armoured unit must at least be able to turn off RPGs from the front and the sides, and 90+mm and light ATGMs from the front. Anything less and you might as well go in in some APC with a 105mm turret. -
If I recall, German Panzers were greatly inferior in quality to Soviet T-34s, and it was the Panter that was designed to conter that. Most of the French army tanks, despite some being impressive like the Char 1C were wasted piecemeal or surrendered without firing a shot, more of a reflection on tatics, rather then the actual quality of equipment. If they did fight, the better quality will win out.Originally posted by |-|05|:Depends on how far back you want to go......during ww2 German tanks were less armoured and had smaller guns then the Russian army and even the French army.During 1 of the Isreali wars they had less armoured and smaller guns then their Arab counterparts also.
For the arabs, what can I say? They fight like modern arabs... shed much blood for little gain. Hardly surprising. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
Well so you just mooted your point.
[b]
more of a reflection on tatics, rather then the actual quality of equipment. If they did fight, the better quality will win out.
b] -
i think we have had enough light tanks in our inventoryOriginally posted by zigzag:Good Day to all,
My very first post!
I am new here, so i am not sure if this topic has been posted before. Was reading one of the threads where u guys were talking about our old AMX13s. There are stories floating around that the SAF wants new light tanks, as u all know. Thought it might be fun if u guys have any ideas about what gizmos u want this 'rumoured' light tank to have? Time to get creative....
need a merveka battalion or make it a few battalion of merveka
if u wana move up NS highway n blast away ur enemies, u certainly need MBTs, not light tanks -
No friend, I simply stated the obvious that quality of equipment is no subsitute for good tatics and organization, and that the supposed victory of tanks with lighter armour and smaller guns is not because their actually anything better with them (which is illogcial), but simply because the Germans were simply way better organized along with having vastly superior tatics (besides numbers). So what history has demostrated is no excuse for having under armoured and under gunned tanks! Which is apparently what you are suggesting.Originally posted by |-|05|:Well so you just mooted your point.
There is no way about it. We need units that can stand against what the enemy can throw against us, if not we are just wasting money and might as well maintain a fleet of LSVs for all it was worth and scrap our armoured force if we're gonna be half-hearted about protection and firepower.
And lastly, I would like to point out that you ability to comprehend posts and history in their context is questionable, given your response. -
You point was this my friendOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:No friend, I simply stated the obvious that quality of equipment is no subsitute for good tatics and organization, and that the supposed victory of tanks with lighter armour and smaller guns is not because their actually anything better with them (which is illogcial), but simply because the Germans were simply way better organized along with having vastly superior tatics (besides numbers). So what history has demostrated is no excuse for having under armoured and under gunned tanks! Which is apparently what you are suggesting.
There is no way about it. We need units that can stand against what the enemy can throw against us, if not we are just wasting money and might as well maintain a fleet of LSVs for all it was worth and scrap our armoured force if we're gonna be half-hearted about protection and firepower.
And lastly, I would like to point out that you ability to comprehend posts and history in their context is questionable, given your response.Armour is extremely important, there is just no excuse for that. History has show many times that the heavy trade off for armor for mobility has almost always resulted in disaster for amroured design
You said heavy trade off for armour for mobility which i take to meant that a tank with less armour is a disaster in tank design(thinking lousy tank??)I merely pointed out that the German lighter tanks brough about victory againest the T-34's and KV-1's and KV-2's.Notice i did not dispute your point about not having a multi ton MBT but something that works. -
Harh, what kind of revisionist history are you studying? German lighter tanks brought victory against Soviet T-34 and their KV series? Not a chance, they were badly outclassed whenever they had to face off toe to toe. And hello, Soviet tanks actually had superior mobility.
Rubbish, the soviet tanks, esp. the T-34 had superior mobility, armour and firepower versus german armour before the emergence of the Panter and the Tiger tanks (which were made to counter them but were too little, too late). Early German sucesses were more due to their armoured tatics, as I have said, not the actual quality of their Panzers, which were at a time even outclassed by the humble M4 Sherman.
Besides it was Soviet armoured juggernault that finally won the day in WW2 in europe, and in a big way as well. Soviet armour finally reigned supreme over German armour. I'm afraid I must reject your stating of WW2 out of hand, entirely. -
Did i say toe to toe??I said they brought victory to the Germans.Yes they used better tactics,logistics and overall skill at personal level.But is bringing victory to the side that used them is the point is it not?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Harh, what kind of revisionist history are you studying? German lighter tanks brought victory against Soviet T-34 and their KV series? Not a chance, they were badly outclassed whenever they had to face off toe to toe. And hello, Soviet tanks actually had superior mobility.
Rubbish, the soviet tanks, esp. the T-34 had superior mobility, armour and firepower versus german armour before the emergence of the Panter and the Tiger tanks (which were made to counter them but were too little, too late). Early German sucesses were more due to their armoured tatics, as I have said, not the actual quality of their Panzers, which were at a time even outclassed by the humble M4 Sherman.
Besides it was Soviet armoured juggernault that finally won the day in WW2 in europe, and in a big way as well. Soviet armour finally reigned supreme over German armour. I'm afraid I must reject your stating of WW2 out of hand, entirely.
Ths Soviet juggernault won as a result of help from it's allies and the mistakes/stupidity of Hitler.That Russia could have won on her own is most certainly debatable.As for the Sherman out classing their actual Panzer i'm assuming you're talking about the Pz IV Ausf G/H??Well sorry dude but those tanks were more then a match for the Shermans.The Pz 4Ausf A-D's though i must say was very much outclass by practially everything cept maybe the polish tanks?heck i think even the Soma's were better!!Anyway the thing here is i do not agree with your saying that we should have something that does the job what i am disagreeing with you is how through history a small gun+thin armour=lousy tank.You should know that 1 more reason the Germans had so much success was due to the 3man turrent instead of the 2 men turrent that the Russians and French/Brits had.But that you should know that already.
-
A long post which does little to detract from waht I have stated. That indeed small gun, weak armour equals lously tank. Early German victories were not won by the quality of their armour (which could did not go down well with general winter anyway), but rather their logistics. Which is utterly irrevelant in what I was trying to say anyway. That the things you have stated are already blown light years out into digression.
We're talking the tank triangle here, that's why this topic is what you see on a new SAF light tank. Not what you would like to see on a new SAF light tank and their supply convoy and armour crews.
You have taken my point out of context. And it remains 100 percent valid. -
Fine fine looks like i mis interpruted(sic) your statement then.Though the victory was won by their better armour though not tanks.Their armour was good enough for the job what with better range and stuff.Anyway for a new SAF tank i'd like to see a nice tank destroyer rather then a MBT which in this reigon the T-91 is a pretty good choice though still a weak MBT.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:A long post which does little to detract from waht I have stated. That indeed small gun, weak armour equals lously tank. Early German victories were not won by the quality of their armour (which could did not go down well with general winter anyway), but rather their logistics. Which is utterly irrevelant in what I was trying to say anyway. That the things you have stated are already blown light years out into digression.
We're talking the tank triangle here, that's why this topic is what you see on a new SAF light tank. Not what you would like to see on a new SAF light tank and their supply convoy and armour crews.
You have taken my point out of context. And it remains 100 percent valid. -
Without any "real life" experience gained from actual battles or wars fought, perhaps we could draw lessons from the experiences of those who have paid a heavy price for the lessons drawn.
Visit the following sites for some very interesting views:
http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/article/article.tankita.1.html
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lighttanks.htm
http://home.swipnet.se/tanks/tanks/armour-mbt-lcv.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-t.htm -
A series of articles written by researchers in their niche area of expertise, listed in short synopsis :
http://www.defence.gov.au/ARMY/LWSC/sopd5.pdf
Land Power and US Army Transformation
Artillery and the Problem of Suppression
Military Lessons from Afghanistan
The Future of Armour
Towards a New American Way of War
US-Australian Defence Co-operation
Infantry Weapons Development
Lessons from Kosovo
Homeland Defense
Irregular Warfare and the Internet
One or two of the above articles can provide some directions for this topic.