Page 24 of 33 FirstFirst ... 15161718192021222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 494

Thread: Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

  1. #346
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    This reads as systems against soft/thin skinned targets. I have doubts about this against heavy armour and bunkers.
    I think the thermobarics was mixed in with antiarmor bomblets.

    Actually, this is false. We want as small fireball as possible. What we want is an overpressure mixed with shrapnel from the shell casing flying at supersonic speeds to cut into anything and everything in its path.
    Yes, I get what you are saying. What I meant was that, if you look at this video for example:

    https://youtu.be/gZYM_MUlBGY?t=1m6s

    Even at 2 million fps, after the first few frames, the chemical explosive has already burnt up, and fireball is already mostly losing energy.

  2. #347
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Gen Scales gets this somewhat wrong.



    MLRS ICM/DPICM rounds were replaced with the AW round. Instead of having 644 submunitions (with an average 60% dud rate) the AW round contain 160,000 preformed tungsten fragments. Think big ass beehive round

    I think that still qualifies as "Steel Rain"

    The real reason we dumped ICM was not because of civilian casualties after the battle. Its because any area that you use ICM rounds in gets classified as a minefield/ No go area for your maneuver troops until Engineers have a chance to clear the area.

    (Edit) ICM rounds/submunitions don't work well in forest, on steep slopes or soft ground (Desert sand or mud). The AW round solves those problems. Its a airburst weapon

    And nothing says loving like HE/VT
    But do you sacrifice footprint?

  3. #348
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    I think the thermobarics was mixed in with antiarmor bomblets.
    Recall the GS's 60% dud rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    Even at 2 million fps, after the first few frames, the chemical explosive has already burnt up, and fireball is already mostly losing energy.
    Which again makes this an AP and not an AT system. I have doubts even against thin-skin LAV-III and M113s.

    Against a mech inf unit, this would almost be useless. Sure you can kill exposed infantry but that would not stop the maneuver. On a battlefield that spans a 100 miles or more, it is killing the vehicles that is important, not the men. How fast can foot infantry travel and how far can they travel when their supply train is stopped?
    Chimo

  4. #349
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,361
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    But do you sacrifice footprint?
    Not really. Our ability to mass fires effectively has grown tremendously in the past 10 years. And when facing a Russian threat we are not facing GSFG...the threat footprint is smaller also.
    We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a days heat, fell dusty.
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  5. #350
    Global Moderator Defense Professional
    Join Date
    30 May 06
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Thermobarics are a good weather weapon. It sucks in wind and rain.
    all the events i know of were assisted shots as well

    ie manually placed by teams to destroy unrecoverables

  6. #351
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    This is the alternative warhead?


  7. #352
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,443
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    This is the alternative warhead?

    Yes. Just as the video says
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  8. #353
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Nov 07
    Posts
    3,568
    So is MGen Scales behind the times on his understanding of our artillery capabilities, or is there room for genuine concern?

  9. #354
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,361
    Quote Originally Posted by citanon View Post
    So is MGen Scales behind the times on his understanding of our artillery capabilities, or is there room for genuine concern?
    What is the threat? What is the air environment? What determines victory conditions? All of that factors into whether you have a concern. Early days in A'stan the 10th Mountain left their M119A2 105mm howitzers at FT Drum and instead used 120mm mortars...and found them woefully inadequate. Next planes in brought the M109s...and then M777 155mm as well.

    Resource requirements are determined by threat and forces to neutralize it.
    We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a days heat, fell dusty.
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  10. #355
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    18 Jun 04
    Posts
    1,845
    recently read on one russian chat discussion about T14 and new mech infantry tactics. The blogger was raising the issue that introduction of active defense systems for armored vehicles changes the usual tactics of dismounted infantry, which was usually hiding behind the armor. The introduction of some sort of such ADS is inevitable in developed armies, Russia and Israel already have it on limited scale, US Army is experimenting with Israeli equipment.

    However, vehicles with ADS might be dangerous for infantry hiding around the armor.... hence, either the ADS system has to be switched off when infantry is around or, no infantry shall be hiding close to the vehicle.... People state that efficiency of armored vehicles left without infantry support around is much lower.

    The discussion started with analysis of usefulness of Afghanit ADS of T14..... however it goes beyond T14, as some sort of ADS will soon become part of armored forces of many armies.

    Interesting topic.... guys what do you think?

  11. #356
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Garry View Post
    recently read on one russian chat discussion about T14 and new mech infantry tactics. The blogger was raising the issue that introduction of active defense systems for armored vehicles changes the usual tactics of dismounted infantry, which was usually hiding behind the armor. The introduction of some sort of such ADS is inevitable in developed armies, Russia and Israel already have it on limited scale, US Army is experimenting with Israeli equipment.

    However, vehicles with ADS might be dangerous for infantry hiding around the armor.... hence, either the ADS system has to be switched off when infantry is around or, no infantry shall be hiding close to the vehicle.... People state that efficiency of armored vehicles left without infantry support around is much lower.

    The discussion started with analysis of usefulness of Afghanit ADS of T14..... however it goes beyond T14, as some sort of ADS will soon become part of armored forces of many armies.

    Interesting topic.... guys what do you think?
    Wont be much change really. Except for urban environments I don't think you'd really don't have infantry all that close to tanks. I never trained in anything looking like a war movie where infantry and tanks were on top of one another. Grunts are squishy, tanks are squishers that draw fire from things that don't just go zippp, but boom. ADS blast or blast from a HEAT round, both are bad news for infantry to close to a tank so spacing is already important. Tanks are also automatically ATT, they can reach out and touch someone so they don't automatically need to be close to the infantry to provide covering and overwatch. Plus in the assault role, Russian conscript infantry are not well trained so train to fight from inside the IFV's and not to dismount until on the objective where they can spray and pray.

  12. #357
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Wont be much change really. Except for urban environments I don't think you'd really don't have infantry all that close to tanks. I never trained in anything looking like a war movie where infantry and tanks were on top of one another. Grunts are squishy, tanks are squishers that draw fire from things that don't just go zippp, but boom.
    Z, how close do mechanized and motorized infantry operate to the tanks when in open plains, broken plains and riverine/canal country?

  13. #358
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus View Post
    Z, how close do mechanized and motorized infantry operate to the tanks when in open plains, broken plains and riverine/canal country?
    Motorized or mechanized? Trucks and APC's (motorized) will generally follow behind tanks. They can't take fire or provide over watch. Some dedicated scout APC's might lead but they can't provide over watch and rely on tanks and IFV's to bail them out if a fight developes. IFV's (mechanized) can provide over watch and in some cases, will even lead tanks. If infantry is dismounted, they generally lead and tanks provide supporting fires and over watch. Though a more recent vet or officer would be better placed to comment than I am. I was just a crewman.

  14. #359
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,352
    Z,
    How do you envision a UK Armoured Infantry Brigade/German Panzer Brigade operate, with its one tank battalion, 2 mech infantry battalion and 1 motor infantry battalion structure? How would the battalion-sized battlegroups be tailored for the mission on relatively open terrain?
    This question obviously goes to other armored troopers and especially to the Brits on the board.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  15. #360
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Triple C View Post
    Z,
    How do you envision a UK Armoured Infantry Brigade/German Panzer Brigade operate, with its one tank battalion, 2 mech infantry battalion and 1 motor infantry battalion structure? How would the battalion-sized battlegroups be tailored for the mission on relatively open terrain?
    This question obviously goes to other armored troopers and especially to the Brits on the board.
    The US Army ran company teams when I was in. An armor brigade would be 2 armor 1 infantry battalions and an infantry brigade would be two infantry and 1 armor battalion. So for example the infantry battalion would have some of its companies famed out to tank companies who would give up a tank platoon to augment the remaining infantry. The result would be 3 combined arms battalions with organic scouts, mortars, maintenance, medical and supply/logistics provided by the parent battalion. The brigade would then farm out engineering and artillery support from its organic or higher assets as needed based on mission.

    Granted, we were set up to face other armor heavy enemies. I saw first hand how important the recon/ counter recon fight was to that style of fighting at NTC. When we won the recon fight, we did pretty good. When we lost it, we ended up getting creamed. As a combat vet as to how it worked in practice against a mostly dismounted urban infantry based opponent. MOUT training when I was in was a kinda now and then but not really thing. I know a lot more about putting on MOPP gear than I do urban combat.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Russia Invites U.S. To A 'Tank Biathlon'
    By Doktor in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 16 Aug 13,, 01:04
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 Apr 12,, 19:14
  3. The Invisible Tank
    By Kernow in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09 Dec 08,, 09:41
  4. Russia claims China backing in Georgia conflict
    By Nauticus in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 31 Aug 08,, 15:46
  5. Russia plays spoilsport in T-90S tank deal
    By Yusuf in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 25 Apr 08,, 11:56

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
  •