Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

T-95 baby

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    OoE Reply

    Colonel,

    "This older generation, ie me, approach anti-tank operations with a FFE barrage from a battery of 155mm howitzers. "

    That is a fact, sir. I'm disappointed that this evolving ATGM/tank debate has so far (until you) ignored these weapons within a cluster of other systems on the battlefield-especially when employed properly.

    Scouts and other ISR assets identify likely or known ATGM sites. Those are targeted for destruction/suppression/obscuration based upon available munitions, delivery systems and scheme of manuever.

    Mechanized infantry and other armor operate from overwatch while discrete elements bound forward. SEAD and other assets reduce or eliminate the AAA/SAM coverage of the defender.

    The big green machine rolls inexoribly towards its intended objective as a symphonic victory march plays in the background and the screen credits scroll by.

    Simple stuff, really, for the practiced professional.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
      No one is saying WE do not need tanks, and your right to point out the tanks ability to be ablw to blitzkriek across a battlefield in huge numbers or be intimate support and "storm" a defensive position, and once through form the "ring of steel" in preperation of the counter attack whilst the Infantry finsih the position and secure it................ howevever what myself, Tankie and Dave are saying with our combined 75 years give or take experience is, we are not blind to the modern battle field and the new and next generations of ATGW , and new fancy ways of "tank bustin" simply becaue of that.......... the tank has ruled but its days are drawing to an end. Not in the foreseeable future but as we know them I am sure.
      I wonder if the heavily armored and very expensive tanks of today will some day be like heavily armored naval vessels are now? A generation from now?
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #33
        Sadly we are so wrapped up in contemporay operations now........... we are training and adapting to those at the expense of training in the "old skills".............as with technology which overtook us and the old skills that we have lost due to that.......... we forget our cold war training and experiences at our peril......just my opinion.
        sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

        Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

        Comment


        • #34
          S2 - response

          Originally posted by S2 View Post
          .Simple stuff, really, for the practiced professional.
          Tis true oh old thunder god , simple enough ...now just promise me we will find and locate every single ATGW matrix..and then have a enough barrels in range and deal with them all ...... and I would be a happy tank cmdr of today.....I still got a feeling my chances would be better running a barrage than running into well sighted ATGW matrix 's
          sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

          Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            This older generation, ie me, approach anti-tank operations with a FFE barrage from a battery of 155mm howitzers.
            yea but , this old tankie would be on the move , advancing to within range ,and after destroying your howitzers ,, its off to your drinks cabinet for rape n pillage of 21 year old MALTS
            Last edited by tankie; 30 Mar 11,, 13:20.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              I wonder if the heavily armored and very expensive tanks of today will some day be like heavily armored naval vessels are now? A generation from now?
              Cant see it m8 , weight rules that out , loss of mobility , very expensive running costs .

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by tankie View Post
                Cant see it m8 , weight rules that out , loss of mobility , very expensive running costs .
                Next thing you know, nuclear tanks on the battlefield. Not only they will be big, doing lots of damage, but noone will shoot on them fearing leaking radiation
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I believe the naval ship<-->tank comparison was this... Extreme armor/firepower (battleships) has given way to light, aluminum-hulled missile platforms. Modern naval power comes not from heavy iron, but from digital processing, computers, radar, and lots of those nasty little missiles everyone hates.

                  MBT = Iowa class battleship
                  XXX = modern Guided missile destroyer

                  So what would XXX be on the land battlefield? Something very fast, light, maneuverable, datalinked into the big picture. Capable of launching large numbers of smart rounds (nasty little missiles) over long distances, able to engage a wide spectrum of threats both air and ground.

                  What we have in reality are 1940's battleships roaming the land, because nothing has quite yet superceded them. But the technology to do so is approaching.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tankie View Post
                    Cant see it m8 , weight rules that out , loss of mobility , very expensive running costs .
                    What I was thinking was that armor might go away, the armored naval ships are all gone now - maybe still on an old old ship in a South American Navy some where, but armored belts, decks, conning towers and turrets have disappeared on modern ships. My idea is we would probably still have mobile track and wheeled units - but armor would be down to splinter or small arms grade - since the modern AT weapons would be able to get through it anyhow. They could be lighter and less expensive because of this - and they could be smaller too - they wouldn't really need a large gun either. Like armored cars or IFV's. Chogy said it better.
                    Last edited by USSWisconsin; 30 Mar 11,, 14:24.
                    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Chogy, USSWISCONSON - reply

                      Correct me if I am wrong but the US Navy in the last 30+ years has not had anyone firing back at them ? I maybe wrong........ but we learned to our cost in the Falklands campaign .......aluminium hulls burn really well when hit ..............
                      Last edited by T_igger_cs_30; 30 Mar 11,, 14:39.
                      sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                      Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                        I believe the naval ship<-->tank comparison was this... Extreme armor/firepower (battleships) has given way to light, aluminum-hulled missile platforms. Modern naval power comes not from heavy iron, but from digital processing, computers, radar, and lots of those nasty little missiles everyone hates.

                        MBT = Iowa class battleship
                        XXX = modern Guided missile destroyer
                        Naval warfare is limited only by the range of weapons and detection assets. There is no relief in the sea, and targets are big and slow. Situation on the land is entirely different. If your words were true, self-propelled artillery and MLRS would dominate any other military branch on the land long ago.
                        Winter is coming.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I don't have the background to draw conclusions on the comparison, just speculating on what appears to be the tendency for armor to be losing the armor:anti-armor munition see-saw battle. If this happens, what is the future of the MBT?

                          Armor can be replaced by speed and greater engagement distance - kill him before he can touch you.

                          What would happen to a heavily armored WW2 battleship if hit by a harpoon or three, or any modern anti-shipping sea-skimming missile? Would the armor decisively lose?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                            What would happen to a heavily armored WW2 battleship if hit by a harpoon or three, or any modern anti-shipping sea-skimming missile? Would the armor decisively lose?
                            Same as what happened to aluminium hulled boats in the Falklands when hit by excocet..........burn and sink I would imagine........ the armour would not stand a chance if I am understanding your question?
                            Last edited by T_igger_cs_30; 30 Mar 11,, 14:54.
                            sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                            Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by T_igger_cs_30 View Post
                              Correct me if I am wrong but the US Navy in the last 30+ years has not had anyone firing back at them ? I maybe wrong........ but we learned to our cost in the Falklands campaign .......aluminium hulls burn really well when hit ..............
                              That is a good point, really no one has mounted any major attacks on the USN since WWII (a few single ship incidents excepted) but I don't think they are designing the ships on that assumption - the aluminum LCS -2 does beg the question. The carriers and AB destroyers are protected with light armor, though nothing like the old battleships. Still the modern AT weapons keep improving, getting more available and cheaper. I am just asking questions and speculating on what might happen - I don't believe I know.
                              sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                              If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                This thread has certainly moved in mysterious ways given it started with a photo of an ugly tank
                                sigpicFEAR NAUGHT

                                Should raw analytical data ever be passed to policy makers?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X