Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
"...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.
Happen to know the Training Team guys doing the operator and maintenance traing in country.
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.
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 ...
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.
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 ...
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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)
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...
Comment