hcrof
-
Posts
1,100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by hcrof
-
-
30 minutes ago, hcrof said:
Continuing my thoughts on armoured vehicles, based on lessons from Ukraine, I give you the modern M113!
The core aims with this vehicle is to have a relatively cheap vehicle with maximum flexibility and minimum maintenance. Commercial car manufacturers can manufacture the base at very low cost, and many different manufacturers can create mission modules, which can be adapted quickly to actual battlefield needs.
They are small and tracked to give great mobility similar to the very successful CVR(T) series. This also makes them easy to conceal in urban and forested terrain, especially since they have electric drive which is quiet and doesn't give off large amounts of heat.
Finally, they aim to minimise the number of crew members so that anyone in harms way is more likely to be a trigger puller as opposed to a driver. no doubt they will require maintainers (despite being electric and very simple) but the maintainers can be safely away from the front lines.
I see them being everything from a cargo train hauling artillery ammo to filling every role in the "Hunter/Observer/Killer" concept above. Basically everything short of heavy engineering and self-propelled guns.
Constructive criticism welcome!
Having a split vehicle also allows for interesting possibilities such as the command section support the dismounted infantry while the APC section prepares for casualty evacuation. Or the command section being separated from the mortar/AA section so counter battery fire is less of a risk to the crew.
At the same time, not having to drive the whole vehicle everywhere also reduces fuel consumption beyond the advantages of the hybrid electric drive.
-
I have had some more thoughts on armoured vehicle design here:
I see a real need for a modern M113-type vehicle in Ukraine, but have some ideas on how to make it more survivable and more mobile, despite the modern requirement for heavier armour. I see them being particularly useful for countries like Ukraine and Poland that want to create large land armies on a relatively small budget.
Head over and tell me what you think!
-
Continuing my thoughts on armoured vehicles, based on lessons from Ukraine, I give you the modern M113!
The core aims with this vehicle is to have a relatively cheap vehicle with maximum flexibility and minimum maintenance. Commercial car manufacturers can manufacture the base at very low cost, and many different manufacturers can create mission modules, which can be adapted quickly to actual battlefield needs.
They are small and tracked to give great mobility similar to the very successful CVR(T) series. This also makes them easy to conceal in urban and forested terrain, especially since they have electric drive which is quiet and doesn't give off large amounts of heat.
Finally, they aim to minimise the number of crew members so that anyone in harms way is more likely to be a trigger puller as opposed to a driver. no doubt they will require maintainers (despite being electric and very simple) but the maintainers can be safely away from the front lines.
I see them being everything from a cargo train hauling artillery ammo to filling every role in the "Hunter/Observer/Killer" concept above. Basically everything short of heavy engineering and self-propelled guns.
Constructive criticism welcome!
-
12 minutes ago, kluge said:
Hate to break it to you, but I feel obligated to point out that lasers are literally a form of radiation emission and as such they are most definitely vulnerable to various forms of EW.
My understanding is that they are highly directional and therefore difficult to pick up unless your sensor is exactly in the right place though - happy to be corrected if I am wrong though.
-
8 hours ago, JonS said:
You've just described a one-sided battle in which the only thing the red team have is one 70t tank. In that scenario your outcome sounds plausible.
I don't think your scenario is very plausible, but that's a different conversation.
I would love to hear more!
I described ATGM teams and drones too, as well as my assumption that you cannot breakthrough without significant attrition, and that enemy vehicles, being easy to spot, will be early targets of that attrition.
I also suggest that if you outrun your fire support and drone bubble you are taking a huge risk. This concept necessary requires both to move with you. I have had previous thoughts on that subject:
https://community.battlefront.com/topic/142139-new-armoured-vehicle-concept-lessons-from-ukraine/
-
17 minutes ago, zinz said:
Don't get the wrong conclusions from this statistics. There is no reason to believe drones are not effectively destroying infantry. What you mostly see is what systems can be successfully engaged and how many are in striking range.
Do you remember in the first months when HIMARS was introduced? They were not targeting single artilleries. So you would conclude that HIMARS is not effective against artillery?
Those statistics show a combination of target availability, target selection priority and effectiveness of the system.
And yes tanks are dead. On this battlefield the need for heavy direct fire systems is gone. Tanks where meant to fight other tanks. But now they are mostly fighting to survive like the battleships.
I think you are right, but a single drone can either take out 1 or maybe 2 soldiers with a successful hit, or 1 vehicle. Vehicles are also bigger targets so easier to hit.
This makes vehicles a very attractive target which is sort of what I was saying. Vehicles are an attractive and easy to spot target even behind the line so have to be sneaky to survive.
-
Some really interesting statistics here. Drones are wrecking enemy equipment but less good at taking out infantry and crew served weapons. I would hesitate to say every strike above is a total loss for Russia but it supports my thesis that anything within 5-10km of the FLOT has got to be sneaky or it will be attacked these days.
-
53 minutes ago, Fernando said:
I have to admit that sometimes I wonder if I might not be defending the Cavalry before World War I, but I still don't see what will replace the tank. I see everything as still very unripe and I doubt it will end up coming to fruition in the near future.
Cavalry and infantry used to wear cuirasses, helmets and other armor in the past, until firearms made them unnecessary, but there continued to be cavalry and infantry (and the cavalry left their horses and evolved into armored forces). New weapons may make the heavy armor of tanks unnecessary, but tanks as such will continue to exist, at least for the foreseeable future, because you will always need units that functionally act as cavalry has always acted. To do so they need the means adequate to achieve it, and I don't see anything better than AFV.
The MBT may evolve into lighter vehicles with diverse functions, or a combination of light and heavy tanks, but there has always been a marked tendency for tanks to be increasingly heavily armed and armored because it has always been the request of their crews. .
Let us remember that before World War II, many light tanks were built by all the nations that could manufacture them, Germany included, and one of the main reasons is that after the crisis of '29 they were cheaper to manufacture and you could deploy more of them the same price, which is the same thing that some are advocating now.
From a crewman's point of view, if you could use a Sherman, T-34 or PzKpfw IV with an L/48 gun, well, much better than a Stuart, or a T70, but it was better if you could use a Panther, and much better if you could use an IS-2, a Pershing, a Tiger I or a Königstiger.
In peacetime it is logical that modern armies have been equipped with the modern equivalent of a Pershing, IS-2 or Tiger, that is, heavily armored and armed tanks, although with more mobility than their predecessors, than cheaper tanks, but worse armed and armored than a MBT. We will see what happens with the new MPF, if it is a step back (introducing a Stuart or Sherman, when you already have Pershings or IS-2) or a step forward.
My feeling right now (and I am not settled on this) is that an ifv like cv90/40 gives you "enough" firepower as well as infantry carrying capability to act in a breakthrough role.
Why? I don't think that any breakthrough will happen until after all the heavy enemy platforms have been attrited or pushed away by drones, artillery, brimstone etc. A 40mm airburst has the range and firepower to have a chance to take out atgm teams (or even the missiles - the same guns are used on ships as ciws). The infantry in the back of the cv90 can have fpv goggles on and help spot for the vehicles with dedicated drones on a secure datalink.
BuT wHaT iF iT is aTtacked By A TaNk??? Assuming a tank got missed by the preceding fires a few 40mm airburst rounds will wreck all its sensors and the supporting smart mortar or brimstone fire will finish the job. The huge 70t tank will be seen first by your drones so it shouldnt get a shot off anyway (your 40mm will help clear the sky of enemy drones).
Happy to hear any constructive criticism of that idea though!
Edit: you would of course use APS, ERA and other fancy tech to protect your vehicle, but the drone screen will work pretty well against heavy threats. Note that the drone screen can be controlled via laser link not Radio since they are kept close to the vehicle. No need to emit radiation and be vulnerable to EW!
-
I am not arguing that guns are dead, drones are king. I am arguing that I struggle to see the relevance of a 120mm high velocity gun when there are a lot of other systems that will do the same thing at reduced weight, cost and risk to the operators. Smart mortars for the big bang, javelin or spike (and their replacements) for dedicated anti tank, brimstone for long range bang and fpv drones (and their ai guided replacements) for being a persistent threat everywhere.
-
1 minute ago, Kinophile said:
A tank shell goes about 3,000 kmh. Not comparable weapons.
While there is obviously a benefit for a 3000kph projectile, one that goes around corners does not need to catch a fleeting target. It will just hunt it down. The target can go turret down or try to run but the guided projectile can always catch it.
And a tank moves at 40kph. It is only the last part that goes really fast.
-
3 hours ago, Offshoot said:
In a similar vein, this is not a development of drones but of flying skills. These pilots are using FPV drones to put explosives through vertically oriented gaps without losing the drone - https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/16qyb3g/new_technique_by_the_kamikaze_drone_operators/
I wonder why we have not seen computer assisted targeting yet like how fighter pilots cab see where the bomb will fall or those new rifle sights that shoot automatically when you are pointing in the right direction? Maybe the control software is proprietary and needs to be rewritten?
Because right now a fpv has a 15-30% pHit but it could be so much more with some software tweaks. (I know EW is also a thing but that is a harder problem to solve for the moment)
-
Since I have nothing better to do, here is a thought experiment:
The latest western tanks cost $10m and weigh 70t. They have a crew of 4 and at least half that again in dedicated sustainers so say 6 soldiers. They have an annual operating cost of $1m (according to Google, don't quote me on that!), and fire rounds that cost $3k each.
Will that system defeat 6 infantry soldiers armed with $1k fpv drones with a range of 5-10km? Or a UGV with a smart mortar, some drone scouts and 6 maintainers/operators?
-
14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:
Humans have a huge "cost advantage" built into them. A single truck needed to supply fuel for a platoon of tanks can "power" a company of Soldiers. Soldiers can forage and source their own supplies, tanks can only do a little of that in theory and not so much in practice. The weaponry that soldiers field are many and the operators are flexible with them. A soldier can jump into an enemy trench and rearm itself within seconds, a tank requires expensive and coordinated logistics to rearm, so no can do. A soldier can change roles at very little expense and difficulty, a tank is whatever it was when it rolled out of the factory. Upgrading a soldier is stupidly simple, upgrading a tank is ungodly expensive even for fairly minor changes. The cost of moving 100 soldiers and their primary equipment is about the same as 1 tank.
And, on top of this, soldiers can be realistically replaced within weeks or months (hell, hours if you're Russia!) and they can be replaced on a large scale. Tanks can not do either of these things.
Anyway, the list of these advantages goes on and on and on. As I've already pointed out, pro-tank arguments never, ever address any of this because if they try they just undermine their position and reinforce the tank-is-dead argument.
Steve
I see your point there but humans are only cheap if they don't die. The lost productivity of a healthy 18 year old is enormous.
But it is beside the point - we are agreed that a tank is a huge investment that can be more effectively spent on other platforms. The benefits gained from a tank have largely been denied by effective long range observation and fires.
-
On "humans are cheap". They are not. But they are cheap to have "in reserve" since there is such a large pool to draw from. So any peer on peer conflict will always involve large numbers of humans simply because they can be mobilised quickly and in huge numbers. Armies should seek to avoid risk to human life but at the same time take advantage of the huge potential of mass mobilisation if it is required.
-
5 minutes ago, Fernando said:
1. I think I have said in other messages that the infantry is the heart of any army and that the rest of the arms (artillery, armored forces, engineers, tactical air force, etc.) are at their service. They have to act in a coordinated manner. coordinated manner with it so that the infantry reaches the final objective.
2. What I am saying is that the infantry cannot fight alone but in the midst of a set of weapons and systems that must act in a combined manner. The composition of each set of weapons is different for each war and for each theater of that war. You do not need the same type of weapons or combination of them in the jungle, in the desert, in urban combat, in a high intensity war, or in a guerrilla war. Therefore, dispensing with weapons that have worked in the past and that we do not know if we will need in the future, seems absurd to me, even if today they don't work as we expected
3. I know you are Canadian, but I get the impression that the American military tends to think in terms of pure brute force. Unfortunately, an infantryman is not a "machine", he is a living being with feelings, and what is more important from a military point of view, with morale, which is what sustains him in combat. Napoleon said that "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." If NATO were fighting a Russian-style infantry war with huge casualties, I don't think it would end well. I have been a 1st lieutenant in the reserve and it is one thing to fight and die in defense of your country, and another to be used as cannon fodder because you are cheaper and more expendable tan a given weapon, no matter irt is a tank or another weapon.
3. I am not advocating an army focused on purely armored units. I am advocating that the infantry could count on tanks (and artillery, and engineering vehicles, and drones, and UGVs, etc.) when necessary, which may be in the next war (which we do not know where it will be or when or how ), or in a later one. For that, you have to have tanks (and drones and whatever it takes) first of all. If you don't have them, if you give them up because they didn't work well in a previous war, you will have to design them for the next war, but the war in which the tanks were missing, and which turned out to be necessary, will have been irretrievably lost.
I think many armies are including tanks in the future because they are hedging their bets and also because a low intensity war might require tanks. The US has the luxury of having lots of everything, but I think many European armies should consider ditching tanks altogether and spending that money on something else.
What is that something else? I am not sure but I think it will involve compact armoured UGVs, APCs for the infantry and UGV "mules" for last mile logistics. And a lot of artillery and drones for fires. Infantry won't go away but may be supplemented by small UGVs that act as team served weapons and drones as expendable scouts. Infantry will become "managers" of a team of robots more than trigger pullers.
-
55 minutes ago, Tenses said:
Ok, I will add another few cents to the "Tank wars" as this seems pretty hot.
First the problem with "Infantry is cheap and easy to replace" problem. This is extreme oversimplification. From military perspective you can say that this is just a few weeks of training and basic gear but there is a problem with that. Young soldiers in their 20s will be having on average about 40 more years to provide value to the society(untill retired). This is a LOT of value in all western democracies. Nations, which don't care about their people like Russia might have a different bill for that, when they send prisoners or alkoholics to the front but for normal countries, price of a young man is much higher. I would not be suprised, if person with higher education on average provided enough value to build an MBT in their lifetime. One can keep things running and generally provide absolute minimum but the other might wirite a few lines of code for Google or whatever, which will bring hundreds of millions. This is economical perspective of course as generally I think this is clear for everyone that life is just priceless. Period. No one should risk anybodys life, if this is not absolutely necessary and there are no other options. Infantry will always be there but with technology it is having less and less on their shoulders, which is a good thing.
Next thing is that tank is going to be obsolete like battleships or heavy cavalry. What needs to be understood is that battleships were replaced by carriers because they provided the same capabilities - long range sea based firepower. Carriers won because they do that a lot better, having much longer range, precision and a lot more firepower than even the mightiest of battleships. The only thing they lacked was the armour but it was actually obsolete with new longer range weapons(CAG). And heavy cavalry example is a bit funny as tanks actually replaced it. They did that because they provided the same capability in a better way. During history armour or defense in general was overmached repeatidly many times until a new solution appeared. We are in this situation right now and this is actually second time for tanks in their history, when this happens(I am looking at you Leo 1). This doesn't mean that we will leave our tanks, AFVs and all the stuff and go on foot because that is "cheap" and "logistics friendly". We will upgrade, turn to UGV, APS, Battlemechs, lasers, plasma cannons. Freaking force fields, I don't know. But certainly no infantry or drone swarms will provide the same capability as tank or whatever it might be called in the future. Drones are actually precision guided munitions and the only vehicles, which might feel threatend by it to be replaced is classical artillery, because(suprise) they provide the same capability.
We can see by the newly announced plans for M1E3, what will be next direction. Lighter vehicle, with all new tech integrated by default like APS and remote controlled weapons. Might be optionally manned but this was not actually stated. This confirms that we are not seeing the end of tank, we are seeing that currently passive armour is overmatched by different threaths and we are building new Leo 1 for new battlefield. Will this be immune to drone swarms and PGMs? Of course not. Will this be more survivable and in effect, provide direct fire support as an apex predator in 2km range? Yes it will.
A carrier does not provide the same capability as a battleship, nor does a tank provide the same capability as heavy cavalry (also, heavy cavalry disappeared long before the tank was invented). We should stop bemoaning the death of the tank and concentrate on its role in the wider system.
Direct fire to 2km - what is that for? Why do we want direct fire? It is not about capabilities it is about the overall effect on the enemy. Heavy cavalry probably always wanted longer and sharper lances but their role does not exist any more so who needs a lance?
A system designed to break through the enemy line and destroy enemy logistics? Great until you realise that it will be likely be spotted and destroyed before it gets into range, especially if you mass them into useful numbers. Artillery can hit a tank from 40km, himars from further, drones from anywhere. And wont a swarm of ai directed drones attacking logistics routes have a similar effect without the need for a breakthrough?
So the tank gets relegated into penny packets acting as assault guns, but then why not go for a cheaper system which are harder to spot and more capable of navigating difficult terrain (i.e. lighter)?
The tank defenders need to tell us how a system designed for the 20th century is supposed to fit into a battlefield that is much more transparent and deadly. 2km direct fire means nothing when a tank company can be spotted and engaged 10km before they reach the enemy. Edit: to give another analogy, a breech loading rifle did not just replace a musket - the whole system had to change.
-
2 minutes ago, Fernando said:
2) The entire
tank systeminfantry system is too damn fragile. Even thetankinfantryman itself is pretty fragile. The thing need only takea fewone sub-munition hitsand one canknock outhurtthe enginethe heart, orthe gunan arm, orthe tracka leg. Then all of the support systems from forwardrepairhospitals to recovery, to logistical support are also heavy, hot and easily spotted. So now one has to bubble wrap that entire system just to keepthe tankinfantry in motion - even assuming away all the threats to thetankinfantryman itself. I am pretty sure ourgas trucksinfantrymenburndie as well as Russian ones.Infantry are hard to see, very hard to kill in a trench, and don't burn gallons of diesel every hour.
Having said that I am sure we will eventually see drones replacing infantry too.
-
Just now, Offshoot said:
Yes, two missiles and he still couldn't hit the plane.
I would love to know how they failed to hit a slow moving aircraft like a rivet joint. I'm sure the Russians would like to know too!
-
Excellent article as always from RUSI:
Gives a detailed after action report and recommendations for how to improve western training efforts for Ukraine.
-
5 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
Hmm perhaps they provide some limited cover, but they still have holes and unprotected spaces. Not to mention pellets could penetrate tire. Even some wood cover would be better, and less nightmarish to remove when in need. I suppose some issues of satellite reconaissance or missile guidance were perhaps at play here.
This is strategic bomber squadron, top nuke-wielding asset in the arsenal of global superpower...and they cover it with used tires. I mean, c'mon ;)... Imagine USAF suddenly covering their B-2's and B-52's with monster truck tires.
Those tires are also gonna be flammable - just dump a Molotov cocktail on them and the plane will go up like a torch!
-
40 minutes ago, Haiduk said:
More footage of 22nd Aug incident with Russian jet attack on UKR RHIBs - here you can see how soldiers fire at the jet with small-arms and something like cloud of MANPAD explosion in the sky. Russian jet despite this continues own strafes and you can hear BRRRRT at the end and close hits
Must be scary for those guys!
Was it confirmed that a boat was destroyed or was that just russian make-believe?
-
14 minutes ago, dan/california said:
This demonstrates two things. Ukrainian special forces are even braver than I thought they were, which is a HIGH bar. The other important fact here though is that the Russians must be truly and desperately short of PGMs for these planes to be engaging with guns. This had to be a max priority mission for the Russian air force, and the best they could do was an incompetent replay of 1953.
Perhaps that plane was doing a CAP with no air to ground weapons when it got re-tasked at short notice?
Certainly not very competent...
-
14 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:
Haiduk already mentioned this episode, but now Russians released video of small Ukrainian boat being destroyed (?) by their planes:
This is the fate of boats, small missile ships (MORs), etc. without air cover. In the video, the Ukrainian boat Willard Marine's SEA FORCE ® 700 destroyed by the fire of the 30mm cannon GSz-30-1 from the Su-30SM near the Island of Vipers/Snakes.
I don't want to be "that guy" but given the dispersion of the cannon rounds I can see maybe the boat took a hole or 2 but it is unlikely to have sunk outright? How many rounds does a su-30 carry? Could there be more shots unrecorded?
-
50 minutes ago, DesertFox said:
Not Tokmak/Melitopol direction, but Mariupol direction. East of the Mokri Yali River, south of Welika Novosilka and direct east to Staromajorske, north of Staromlynivka.
Thanks, Ukrainian villages all have the same names and it is very confusing when people expect you to know which of the 5 identically named places they are talking about!
New armoured vehicle concept: lessons from Ukraine
in General Discussion Forum
Posted · Edited by hcrof
14.5mm protection
I also used to be team wheels, but Composite Rubber Tracks, combined with electric drive has shifted my thinking somewhat:
https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/__crt
Low maintenance, weight savings, fuel savings, less bulky than wheels, with not much mechanical complexity. No you cant do a 1000km road march, but the vehicle above can be loaded onto a commercial truck for that. By comparison, something like a Patria AMV is already a low-cost Stryker but the concept does not seem to have caught on (maybe due to decades of low-intensity wars).
Agreed that these vehicles need to stay away from the shooting, so could potentially save some weight with armour. The problem is that if you go back to small wars then you need to option to load it up with huge quantities of add-on armour to prevent casualties in ambushes.
How to deal with the drone swarm? I think it is your own drone swarm. Layers of UAVs, then UGVs mixed with light infantry, then larger vehicles like the Hunter concept. Humans in bigger vehicles act as communication nodes, control stations and electric generators further back. They will still be vulnerable but if they are 5-10km behind your drone pickets and heavily dispersed then the murderbot SWARM will spend a lot of time flying around and not a lot of time killing. They can then be identified and attrited hopefully before they hit the support layer.
I actually see the murderbot swarm as the new tank. They are fast, resilient and have good "firepower" and can be sent on a mission to clean out an area before you push up the heavier assets such as support elements (the utility vehicle above) and artillery.
Edit: oh and I think that armour against 14.5mm at 500m is needed (frontal protection). I cant remember how many times I have used BTRs in ambushes against BMPs in CMSF and a 20mm cannon can also really ruin your day at quite long range if you don't have the protection against it.