Page 4 of 43 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 632

Thread: Ask An Expert- LAND Forces.

  1. #46
    Defense Professional ArtyEngineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Dec 09
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by S2 View Post
    "...what will the US do with their M198 now that M777 is replacing it?"

    That's a good question which I can't answer. The M198 is an excellent weapon. Perhaps Albany Rifles or Artillery Engineer know. They may be available through our foreign military sales or they might all have been pushed down to our nat'l guard and U.S. Army Reserve.
    The M198s are going to the Iraqi Artillery Units.

    Attachment 25948

    Attachment 25949

    Happen to know the Training Team guys doing the operator and maintenance traing in country.

    Regards

    Arty
    "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations".- Motto of the Gun Crew who have just done something incredibly stupid!!!!

  2. #47
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,396
    Wayfarer the answer is both. Recent trends have seen tanks getting heavier. Armor protection is actually outpacing anti-armor technology in most cases (for the present). However new technologies and new threats coming on line make the previous emphasis on massive frontal protection a thing of the past. Now future tanks need to be able to defend on on all sides including the top and control all emissions (RF, IR, Noise etc), retain not just ground but strategic mobility and preserve cost effectiveness.

    Making a tank able to physically withstand all angle attacks would make it a bunker not a tank so technology is likely going to reduce the need for armor making a tank lighter in a base form but scaling up in weight as the threat intensifies. In an environment where the main threat is missiles- add an active defensive system and some form of ERA. If the threat is gun fire- add modular armor blocks etc. Technology will also provide the answers for the other threats the tank faces.

    The real problem facing future tanks in the medium to long term is how to get enough firepower to the battlefield to remain relevant, mobile and useful given a high intensity threat situation. The US has bet on smart stand off weapons like the MRM-CE while Germany and Russia have been exploring larger weapons.
    For a nation like India or Pakistan bigger remains better, but for nations with an expiditionary outlook lighter might be better.

  3. #48
    Regular ace009's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Aug 10
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Wayfarer the answer is both. Recent trends have seen tanks getting heavier. Armor protection is actually outpacing anti-armor technology in most cases (for the present). However new technologies and new threats coming on line make the previous emphasis on massive frontal protection a thing of the past. Now future tanks need to be able to defend on on all sides including the top and control all emissions (RF, IR, Noise etc), retain not just ground but strategic mobility and preserve cost effectiveness.

    Making a tank able to physically withstand all angle attacks would make it a bunker not a tank so technology is likely going to reduce the need for armor making a tank lighter in a base form but scaling up in weight as the threat intensifies. In an environment where the main threat is missiles- add an active defensive system and some form of ERA. If the threat is gun fire- add modular armor blocks etc. Technology will also provide the answers for the other threats the tank faces.

    The real problem facing future tanks in the medium to long term is how to get enough firepower to the battlefield to remain relevant, mobile and useful given a high intensity threat situation. The US has bet on smart stand off weapons like the MRM-CE while Germany and Russia have been exploring larger weapons.
    For a nation like India or Pakistan bigger remains better, but for nations with an expiditionary outlook lighter might be better.
    In response to that, how do you compare the two MBTs India has, the T-90S and the semi-indegenous Arjun? How do they compare head to head and where would they fit in the tank doctrines of the subcontinent?
    I would love to know what the professionals have to say ...
    Ace o Spades in Ninth Hell

  4. #49
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,396
    Quote Originally Posted by ace009 View Post
    In response to that, how do you compare the two MBTs India has, the T-90S and the semi-indegenous Arjun? How do they compare head to head and where would they fit in the tank doctrines of the subcontinent?
    I would love to know what the professionals have to say ...
    use the search function unless they got trashed. back in 07/09 period when I was keeping up on the two I did a pretty indepth discussion on which I preffered and how both fit vs the Al Khalid and T-84. As an American the basic platform of the Arjun appeals to me more than a t-series. But the Arjun has as many flaws as the t-90 IMHO. I don't like the Arjun's gun, its night/bad weather ability was lacking, battle management in the mk 1 was non-existent, the cost was too high and the numbers ordered prevented a low cost per unit. I really like the Arjun's mobility and potential. The T-90 if supplied with good ammo had the better gun but suffered from crew fatigue issues and a mininamlist approach to onboard stores unless willing to risk flying frying pans to even light behind armor effects (BAE). However the T-90's French supplied optics gave it a better night/bad weather capability and its active protection system and heavy ERA might actually make it better protected than the Arjun vs a missile threat.

  5. #50
    Regular ace009's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Aug 10
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    use the search function unless they got trashed. back in 07/09 period when I was keeping up on the two I did a pretty indepth discussion on which I preffered and how both fit vs the Al Khalid and T-84. As an American the basic platform of the Arjun appeals to me more than a t-series. But the Arjun has as many flaws as the t-90 IMHO. I don't like the Arjun's gun, its night/bad weather ability was lacking, battle management in the mk 1 was non-existent, the cost was too high and the numbers ordered prevented a low cost per unit. I really like the Arjun's mobility and potential. The T-90 if supplied with good ammo had the better gun but suffered from crew fatigue issues and a mininamlist approach to onboard stores unless willing to risk flying frying pans to even light behind armor effects (BAE). However the T-90's French supplied optics gave it a better night/bad weather capability and its active protection system and heavy ERA might actually make it better protected than the Arjun vs a missile threat.
    I did search for these, but could not find anything - too many hits with either one and none when I mention both tanks in my search. Can you please post a link if you find it somewhere? it would be a great favor ...
    Ace o Spades in Ninth Hell

  6. #51
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,396

  7. #52
    Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Mar 09
    Posts
    517
    I have a question.



    How come the side of the HIMARS Launcher is so thick? That could easily fit another 2 stacks of missiles.

  8. #53
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,797
    Quote Originally Posted by cr9527 View Post
    That could easily fit another 2 stacks of missiles.
    The missiles for HIMARS and MLRS come in prepackaged 6-packs (L/CPs - launch/container packs). HIMARS is built to accept the same L/CPs for logistics reasons.

    The "thick" space mostly accomodates the loading boom for the L/CP (see [this Video]). On MLRS there is similar spacing even between the L/CPs for this.
    Last edited by kato; 17 Aug 11, at 08:36.

  9. #54
    Contributor
    Join Date
    26 Mar 09
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    The missiles for HIMARS and MLRS come in prepackaged 6-packs (L/CPs - launch/container packs). HIMARS is built to accept the same L/CPs for logistics reasons.

    The "thick" space mostly accomodates the loading boom for the LPC (see [this Video]). On MLRS there is similar spacing even between the L/CPs for this.
    How come none of the Russian/Soviet MLRS have this?

  10. #55
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,797
    Quote Originally Posted by cr9527 View Post
    How come none of the Russian/Soviet MLRS have this?
    Because that's mostly an idea that came around in the very late 70s - offhand the first such system was either the Italian FIROS-25 or the Israeli LAR-160. The only Soviet MLRS that came into service after that is Smerch. The more current 9A52-4 Tornado aimed to be a possible replacement of Smerch also uses launch pods.

    Besides, if you have enough launchers to "service" the front line sequentially you don't need as fast reload times as Western systems have. Especially when there's a good chance counterbattery fire will destroy units anyway. There's western systems that operated on this basis too. Germany kept a grand total of 12 reloads for every LARS launcher in depots - sufficient for maybe half a day of combat for all units.

  11. #56
    Regular ace009's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Aug 10
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Because that's mostly an idea that came around in the very late 70s - offhand the first such system was either the Italian FIROS-25 or the Israeli LAR-160. The only Soviet MLRS that came into service after that is Smerch. The more current 9A52-4 Tornado aimed to be a possible replacement of Smerch also uses launch pods.

    Besides, if you have enough launchers to "service" the front line sequentially you don't need as fast reload times as Western systems have. Especially when there's a good chance counterbattery fire will destroy units anyway. There's western systems that operated on this basis too. Germany kept a grand total of 12 reloads for every LARS launcher in depots - sufficient for maybe half a day of combat for all units.
    Interesting, so it's again a choice between "Quality" and "Quantity"?
    Did the soviets have that much of quantitative advantage during cold war in terms of Arty and Rocket batteries?

    (I know the Soviets had almost a 2:1 advantage in tanks, which is why NATO went for Heavy Tanks rather than the Medium tanks like the Warsaw pact.)
    Ace o Spades in Ninth Hell

  12. #57
    Señor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    Field Artillery and Firepower´ has a scary figure, that shows

    weight of fire compared between a soviet army of five divisions and the British I corps in the late 1970´s (theoretical maximum weight of HE that could be delivered in 1 minute)

    british:
    81mm mortars, M110 203mm. SP howitzer, M107 175mm. SP gun, FH-70 155mm. towed howitzer, 105mm. Light Gun, Abbot 105mm. SP gun - all together 55,6 tons, with max. range of ~ 35km.

    soviet:
    120mm. mortars,T-12 towed AT gun, D-30 122mm. towed howitzer, 2S1 122mm. SP howitzer, 2S3 152mm.SP howitzer, D-20 152mm. towed howitzer, BM-21 Grad SP rocket launcher, M46 130mm. towed gun, BM-27 220mm. rocket launcher, SS21 Tochka & SS-23 Oka ballistic missiles - all together 367.6 tons, with max. range 300km. (Oka with submunitions warhead)
    edit -
    google books has the chapter, Field artillery and firepower - Google Books , but the diagram is on page 460-461, which is not included
    Last edited by BD1; 18 Aug 11, at 20:32.
    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

  13. #58
    Defense Professional ArtyEngineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Dec 09
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    556

    Bd1

    Quote Originally Posted by BD1 View Post
    Field Artillery and Firepower´ has a scary figure, that shows



    edit -
    google books has the chapter, Field artillery and firepower - Google Books , but the diagram is on page 460-461, which is not included
    BD1,

    I have that book on my shelf back a home, which is where I should be come saturday evening. WIll scan and upload said page for all to see.

    Arty
    "Admit nothing, deny everything, make counter-accusations".- Motto of the Gun Crew who have just done something incredibly stupid!!!!

  14. #59
    Señor Contributor Senior Contributor BD1's Avatar
    Join Date
    30 Nov 06
    Location
    estonia
    Posts
    2,836
    thanks! i have the book, but don´t have scanner...
    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

  15. #60
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    3,797
    The comparable number for German III Corps in late 70s with its 3 divisions was about 87 tons btw. Basically the same as the British Corps with additionally in particular LARS (39.2 tons by itself) weighing in. 216x 155mm guns (M109 and M114), 48x heavy guns (M107 and M110), 96x self-propelled 120mm mortars, 64 LARS launchers, 6 Lance launchers. Max range profile 130 km.

    87 tons is the theory of course. The practical version would have been about 83 tons HE plus 24 tactical nukes with combined maximum yield of about 1,320 kilotons...
    Last edited by kato; 20 Aug 11, at 18:16.

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: 1067
    Last Post: 06 Dec 16,, 14:55
  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,, 05:42
  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,, 18:13

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
  •