Jump to content

Marines Out of Tank Warfare!


Recommended Posts

How difficult to kill the 20 Javelin inf teams that can be hidden anywhere over a 2.5Km front vs every MBT? 

One has to remember that economically and logistically one can build about 31 Jav systems for every M1A1.  Then one can transport about 3,500 Jav's for the same weight as a MBT.

I love armor as much as any other armor fan.  But, just as with bows and arrows and horse cavalry, everything gets superseded at some point.  We can debate as to when.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yeah, I know, not happening.  But big stompy robots will always be at the top of the cool factor chart for me.

A little case study from the Big Igloo: Canadian Armed Forces wanted to replace Leo 1s with mobile gun systems in the 2000s. Leo 1s were losing their relevance, and the LAV family was proving pop

It's difficult to say. This topic - the obsolesence of the tank - came up again during the recent Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict, as there was a lot of video released of tanks getting droned. Nicholas Mo

Posted Images

2 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

I wanted to ask for a long time, I know that in US Army and USMC machineguns are used  disintegrating belt. In Russian army, non-disintegrating. What do you do with a machinegun belt after shooting at range ? 

We would collect up all the brass and links and put them back in the ammo crates they came from. The supply sergeant would then return them to the issuing ordinance unit for disposal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Erwin said:

I love armor as much as any other armor fan.  But, just as with bows and arrows and horse cavalry, everything gets superseded at some point.  We can debate as to when.

Tanks are just the modern incarnation of siege engines. Before petrol, man and horse had to tow protected towers, wheeled fortifications and protected rams. They can also fulfill a cavalry role, by firing on the move.

The Javelin is a superb ATGM, but it cannot accomplish these tasks. Since both sieges and maneuver warfare have proved devastatingly costly, in the last century: their implement is on audit. But if they do occur, people will need the right tool for the job.

The tank will eventually be obsolete, no doubt. Once humanity discovers a fundamentally new form of moving fortifications and large weapons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/22/2020 at 11:26 PM, Erwin said:

How difficult to kill the 20 Javelin inf teams that can be hidden anywhere over a 2.5Km front vs every MBT? 

One has to remember that economically and logistically one can build about 31 Jav systems for every M1A1.  Then one can transport about 3,500 Jav's for the same weight as a MBT.

I love armor as much as any other armor fan.  But, just as with bows and arrows and horse cavalry, everything gets superseded at some point.  We can debate as to when.

I can tell you i wouldnt want to be the guy having to launch a javelin at an mbt that can fire a 120mm+ airburst he shell, has several thermal optics equally if not more powerfull than my own. I might kill the tank but the he grenade will kill me and my buddies. And if the tank has an APS i cant even expect a kill. And since tanks arent used alone and if the one im shooting at doesnt get me another one probably will.

As for economics youre not really making fair comparisons. Every MBT will cost far more to initially acuire but the ammunition is far cheaper. Now take in mind youre not always shooting at MBTs so your cost effectiveness for missiles goes way down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 3:58 PM, Wicky said:

I wonder if hypersonic tech will filter down to smaller / lower range tactical AT weapons.

As some interesting tech being developed that will likely make carriers keep a wide berth of threats.

Well, the M829A4 (and previous variants) have a muzzle velocity of over 5,000 fps. That puts these rounds squarely at the threshold of the hypersonic regime. (Mach 5+) 

(Sigh: okay, it takes ~1658m/s to reach Mach 5. (Mach is dependent mainly upon Air Temperature: it slows as the temperature drops. Atmospherically, the temperature stabilizes ~35,000 feet. So, Mach gradually reduces in speed from Sea Level up to 35,000' and then stays pretty constant on up from there. Sea level, standard day, Mach 1 ~ 335m/s.) 

Where was I? Ah, yes, the M829A4 round and hypersonics. Given the various M829 penetrator weights, they have various muzzle velocities. (The Rheinmetall Rh-120 gun comes in L44 and L55 lengths. The longer one, with a tungsten penetrator (lighter than the US depleted uranium ones), has a significantly higher muzzle velocity. It's on the order of 1750 m/s...or more.) 

The M829A4 is ~M4.9, or so. Again, dependent upon atmospheric temperature.

The energies with which these ~10kg weapons impact their targets gives a good idea of the power of hypersonics.)

(I lost track of my parentheses, so here's some more to make sure I close this out. )

)

)

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, holoween said:

i wouldnt want to be the guy having to launch a javelin at an mbt that can fire a 120mm+ airburst he shell, has several thermal optics equally if not more powerfull than my own. I might kill the tank but the he grenade will kill me and my buddies. And if the tank has an APS i cant even expect a kill. And since tanks arent used alone and if the one im shooting at doesnt get me another one probably will.

Sadly, casualties are to be expected.  However, (assuming CM does reflect reality) the modern CM2 games clearly demoinstrate how deadly even a few ATGM's are to an armored force.  And when we start having 5-10 ATGM's per enemy tank, it would be a massacre. 

A nation can afford to lose and replace a few dozen ATGM units.  It can't afford to lose a few dozen expensive and hard to transport and replace MBT's in a single short engagement. 

This seems to be the direction that the Brits are thinking about in as well as the USMC.

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Sadly, casualties are to be expected.  However, (assuming CM does reflect reality) the modern CM2 games clearly demoinstrate how deadly even a few ATGM's are to an armored force.  And when we start having 5-10 ATGM's per enemy tank, it would be a massacre. 

A nation can afford to lose and replace a few dozen ATGM units.  It can't afford to lose a few dozen expensive and hard to transport and replace MBT's in a single short engagement. 

This seems to be the direction that the Brits are thinking about in as well as the USMC.

In CMSF2 a jevelin is a sure kill if launched. All other ATGMs are far less likely to KO a NATO MBT.

With APS youre looking at fairly low killchances even for javelins.

 

If we were living in a world without aps but with javelins id agree with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, holoween said:

In CMSF2 a jevelin is a sure kill if launched.

It's agreed that we may be getting a skewed impression of modern warfare and the efficacy of Javelins and other ATGM's in the CM games - cos, well... they are games.  That comes from all the emphasis that CM is the most accurate and realistic sim since white bread sort of propaganda, and I know that I have often "drank the cool-aid" on that.  (But, then have been able to expurge it.)   :P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I think that peoples' opinions of tanks as undefeatable monsters which should never die has been skewed by NATO's use of mass armoured formations in one-sided fights against third world armies which had already been shattered or heavily attrited by ground attack aircraft which enjoyed complete air supremacy. 

In peer conflicts, tanks formations were taking 50+% casualties for every week of serious combat in WW2, and the 1967 and Yom Kippur Wars. Recent NATO experience is an aberration.

Sustaining armoured warfare against peer forces revolves around one thing - the ability to get the crews into replacement vehicles and back into the fight. The tank is not obsolete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to say. This topic - the obsolesence of the tank - came up again during the recent Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict, as there was a lot of video released of tanks getting droned. Nicholas Moran says this is an old failing - no anti-air measures whatsoever means dead tanks.

We're likewise familar with SAA T-72s getting shwacked by FSA RPG teams, and yet the Syrian army still had nothing else that can get into city areas and deliver HE on FSA positions. The losses were an accepted risk.  The infantry couldn't do it. The BMPs couldn't do it. The tanks could. They were basically being used as assault guns, but any army fights with what it has.

Tank war isn't glamorous and isn't easily propogandised. It's easy to put together a supercut of tanks getting smashed up by ATGMs but you won't find much footage of tanks killing other tanks or spearheading urban assaults because the danger's such nobody films those. Apart from the SAA, apparently.

I don't think the tank's done quite yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sulman said:

you won't find much footage of tanks killing other tanks or spearheading urban assaults because the danger's such nobody films those

True...  But if we had super-armored, big-gunned urban assault AFV's they would not need all the expensive stuff on on MBT and therefore be much less expensive - could also be remote operated.  Plus given sufficient ATGM's (whether land or drone mounted), CM2 teaches very effectively how vulnerable the MBT is these days.  

Tanks are moist effective when used by a more sophisticated nation vs the natives - like the WW2 Italians in Ethiopia.  Also, for population control by despots vs civilians (Russians in Hungary and pretty much all 2nd and 3rd world nations).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2020 at 6:31 AM, Sulman said:

It's difficult to say. This topic - the obsolesence of the tank - came up again during the recent Azerbaijan/Armenia conflict, as there was a lot of video released of tanks getting droned. Nicholas Moran says this is an old failing - no anti-air measures whatsoever means dead tanks.

Everything was droned from AA assets to artillery pieces and groups of men. IMHO that says nothing about the absoluteness of tanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Erwin said:

True...  But if we had super-armored, big-gunned urban assault AFV's they would not need all the expensive stuff on on MBT and therefore be much less expensive - could also be remote operated. 

This might seem snarky, and I don't intend it to, but you do realise you've just said that a cheaper tank is better than a more expensive tank, right?

How does a remote-operated anything work in an EW-saturated environment?

 

22 hours ago, Erwin said:

Tanks are moist effective when used by a more sophisticated nation vs the natives - like the WW2 Italians in Ethiopia.  Also, for population control by despots vs civilians (Russians in Hungary and pretty much all 2nd and 3rd world nations).

I don't think this is accurate at all. IFVs have to compromise armour and weapons in order to carry passengers. If you want additional firepower, you have to either compromise on armour, or passenger capability. If you want both firepower and armour, then you don't have passengers, and you end up back with a tank.

 

1 hour ago, Bufo said:

Everything was droned from AA assets to artillery pieces and groups of men. IMHO that says nothing about the absoluteness of tanks.

Armenia was hammered because they had obsolete air defenses (their most advanced AA systems haven't been upgraded since before the Soviet Union fell) versus modern, brand new ground attack aircraft, and they either couldn't or wouldn't contest Azerbaijan in the air.

Edited by Grey_Fox
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...