Page 30 of 43 FirstFirst ... 21222324252627282930313233343536373839 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 637

Thread: Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

  1. #436
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by BD1 View Post
    in local mil.forum guys who have been fighting them have said that even with little improvement the taliban side should have managed to expand the coalition casualities at least tenfold.
    They tried, up to and including battalion level engagements ... and they got their asses handed to them. There is only so much improvement before they have to step up to the next level and they suck much worst at that level.

  2. #437
    Señor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    They tried, up to and including battalion level engagements ... and they got their asses handed to them. There is only so much improvement before they have to step up to the next level and they suck much worst at that level.

    no i mean easier things
    Sniper War in Afghanistan (page 2)
    If i only was so smart yesterday as my wife is today

    Minding your own biz is great virtue, but situation awareness saves lives - Dok

  3. #438
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Question: has anyone deployed programmable munitions in their IFV auto cannons?

    Someone mentioned PLA has programmable munitions fired from their IFV. I find that hard to believe.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  4. #439
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,592
    Sweden uses programmable 40mm 3P ammunition in the CV9040 (currently).
    Rheinmetall 35mm KETF ABM programmable rounds is qualified with the CV9035 and currently in use with Denmark and the Netherlands.

    South Korea in planning to deploy programmable fuzed multi-purpose 40mm ammo on the K21, Germany is introducing such with the 30mm ABM ammo for Puma.

  5. #440
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,417
    During the interbellum period there were plenty of multi-turreted tanks created, and usually quickly replaced during the war. Today modern tanks often replace the top-mounted machine gun with a remote controlled weapon platform. Could tanks that make use of these be classified as modern versions of multi-turreted tanks?

  6. #441
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    9,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
    During the interbellum period there were plenty of multi-turreted tanks created, and usually quickly replaced during the war. Today modern tanks often replace the top-mounted machine gun with a remote controlled weapon platform. Could tanks that make use of these be classified as modern versions of multi-turreted tanks?
    I think not because the tankettes and early mediums you speak of (the US M2 & M3 Grant or French Char B for instance) either had twin turrets independent of each other, crewed individually and either sporting weapons of similiar caliber or a large caliber infantry support cannon in the hull with a smaller caliber AT gun in a turret on top.

    The current independent weapon station is nothing more than a a way a TC can use the secondary heavy machine gun while under cover and from a more stable platform.

    That is my view, anyway.

    Now is there someone somewhere coming up with something different? Could be but I don't see the value.
    “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
    Mark Twain

  7. #442
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    The doctrine is different. People didn't know how to use tanks in the 1930s. Most envision another trench war with slow and lumbering tanks crossing the ditches, with machineguns blazing on all sides, to break through the stalemate.

    Now the remote weapon station is just a secondary weapon for the TC to use against soft targets instead of swinging the entire turret around or risk sticking his head outside.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  8. #443
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,407

    UK Brigades

    Looked at 3rd Mechanized Division's four heavy combat brigades. These are huge units consisted the equivalent of 1 recce, 1 armor, 4 infantry and 2 engineer bn. If I am not mistaken that these are maneuver instead of administrative units, how exactly are they deployed operationally?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  9. #444
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,592
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    These are huge units consisted the equivalent of 1 recce, 1 armor, 4 infantry and 2 engineer bn.
    Remember that those four brigades are the entire British Army (except for BAOR = 1st AD w/ 2 brigades). Basically the British effectively renamed their corps divisions and enlarged their brigades to the maximum remotely runnable. One of the four brigades in 3rd Mech is a light brigade btw.

    Operationally, it seems in current deployments the brigade HQ serves more as a sort of divisional command for multiple independent battlegroups that are formed out of subunits of the brigade. E.g. Taskforce Helmand is generally run with a brigade HQ as command and two or more battlegroups formed around infantry battalions of the brigade as independent maneuver units.

  10. #445
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,407
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Remember that those four brigades are the entire British Army (except for BAOR = 1st AD w/ 2 brigades). Basically the British effectively renamed their corps divisions and enlarged their brigades to the maximum remotely runnable. One of the four brigades in 3rd Mech is a light brigade btw.

    Operationally, it seems in current deployments the brigade HQ serves more as a sort of divisional command for multiple independent battlegroups that are formed out of subunits of the brigade. E.g. Taskforce Helmand is generally run with a brigade HQ as command and two or more battlegroups formed around infantry battalions of the brigade as independent maneuver units.
    Thanks!

    Different question. In Heer it seems that most heavy brigades have one armor and two mech. infantry bn. How is a typical battle group formed in this organization? A US heavy brigade combat team seem to encourage the commander to split it into two even tank infantry task forces. With the German structure (looks like a half Panzer Division from WWII) how is that arranged?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  11. #446
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,592
    The brigade itself is the basic battlegroup under German concepts, there's no further subdivision. At least in the current and the previous Army Structures, and when it comes to traditional battlefield operations.

    Germany handles deployments a bit differently. Basically, we don't shift battalions and such to an appropriate tasking, instead we assign a battalion a particular task and then shift around men, equipment and training until the unit fits the task (with the exception of some highly specialized tasks mostly in support).

    In current structures we assign a division to handle all foreign deployments during a year - or rather, to handle all ground deployments.
    This division fields multiple multi-purpose groups formed around individual battalions. These groups then e.g. staff a PRT in Afghanistan, handle the entire EUFOR BiH deployment alone, or become an infantry battle-group on readiness to reinforce KFOR. Brigade and regiment level commands are used as command units for theaters in which the division posts multiple such battlegroups (read: Afghanistan), generally with that theater getting battalion groups from the same brigade.
    The number of such groups fielded by the division is rather high; iirc e.g. during 2011, 1. Panzerdivision as the lead division fielded at least 17 such battlegroups and 3 brigade-level commands to the three theaters (and eight deployments) Germany has ground troops in. Other than specialist tasks (e.g. running field camps, or fielding medics, major logistics etc) all deployed soldiers came solely from 1. Panzerdivision (Heer) and Logistikregiment 47 (Joint Forces Support) operationally attached to the division.

    Of course current operations differ quite a bit from traditional operations. And of course we'll need to change this quite a bit with the next army structure, since we're reducing the number of divisions quite a bit to something similar to the British outfit.

    P.S. to above: The "lead division" and its battalion groups only field the "cores" for each fielding. E.g. PRT Kunduz in the first half of 2011 used Armored Battalion 33 as its own "lead unit", with that battalion fielding about 400 men to the PRT, taking up its command, combat and combat support positions.
    Last edited by kato; 18 Jan 13, at 10:34.

  12. #447
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,407
    So the Bundeswehr Brigade is the "battlegroup" but battalions subordinate to it would be the tactical units that carry out missions, for which it would receive reinforcements of armor, infantry, artillery, whatever it needs? In my understanding of US/UK doctrine, the battalion sized unit tailored to carry out missions is what task force or battlegroup typically referred to. Is that a difference in terminology? Or is there some conceptual idea that I am not understanding?
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  13. #448
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,592
    The German term for battlegroup is "Kampfgruppe" (literally: combat group). Kampfgruppen were first formed in WW2, and could be any size between company and corps, generally often formed around a battalion. Post-WW2, Germany declared that each division should have two to three Kampfgruppen - which were later renamed into brigades (since that was the NATO standard term for a unit of this level).

    British use of the term battlegroup (from which US use derives) instead derives it from WW2 practices.

    Both terms are very rarely used in modern German. If at all, you see the term "Kampfgruppe" applied as a generic term for a small integrated combat unit, such as the QRF for RC(N) in ISAF - which is more like a reinforced infantry company. Battlegroup, as in the English word, is pretty much only applied to the EUBG in Germany. Which is styled more after a French Demibrigade than a battalion combat group.

    Difficult to explain when you're crossing between different army concepts. The French for example do not have a real term for a "battlegroup" - other than perhaps a force, which refers to the forces assigned to a certain mission.

  14. #449
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,592
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    The French for example do not have a real term for a "battlegroup"
    P.S.: French groups are called groupes tactiques inter-armes - "tactical combined-arms groups". These are styled as smaller versions of the French Demibrigade concept and used in colonial... err, overseas deployments.

  15. #450
    Senior Contributor Versus's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Jul 06
    Location
    Belgrade
    Posts
    3,050
    What is the typical recoil force, for the 105 mm tank gun in newtons?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Land Forces Quiz
    By smilingassassin in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 1283
    Last Post: 01 Oct 19,, 15:48
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07 May 08,, 05:22
  3. Flatulence Forces Plane to Land
    By Shek in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10 Dec 06,, 06:42
  4. Turkish Land Forces
    By AlpErTunga in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03 Jul 06,, 02:14
  5. How Good Is India's Land Forces
    By Kontakt Era in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 10 Feb 05,, 19:13

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •