minmax Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 Being a teacher I like to generate good discussion. So here is the question. With high velocity SABOT rounds, shape charged warheads in ATGMs, high K-energy mines that seem oblivious to any armor is armor thickness that important? I think heavy armor is a waste, I think speed and manueverability is more important. Is there something out there that can nullify weapons effectiveness against Main Battle Tanks? Anyway, I am curious about what others with far greater knowledge than mine think.%) "It ain't over till a GRUNT puts a flag on it!" ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted February 1, 2001 Share Posted February 1, 2001 The battle between armour and weapon is an old one, from pre-medievil times. Usually the latest weapon will end up beating the latest armour. However, I'd still like to have armor capable of defeating the other 95% of weapons out there, even at the cost of some maneuverability. Then again, I have a very defensive mindset. I assume the other guy is a good shot and will get the first shot off (Ambush or some such), and no amount of speed will prevent a hit from a good gunner with a good weapon, especially with today's high-speed target acquisition/engagement times. NTM ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jaja Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 Armor will ceretinly not go out of fashion. In the near future, I see active armor and organic (in the chemistry sense) armor protecting our fighting units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zizka Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 With questions like these, it's important to remember to answer within the context of the COMBINED ARMS fight. If you imagine only a kinetic energy round flying toward a tank, the scenario looks grim for the tank. But remember that the tank is intended to fight as part of a team of infantry, armor, artillery, attack aviation, etc. And it's most effective when employed en masse against vulnerable targets. In this happier scenario, artillery is suppressing enemy ATGMs. Infantry is infiltrating and harassing the enemy with close-in antiarmor fires. And the tanks are overruning the enemy's command posts and logistics! Keep in mind also that enemy ATGMs don't just appear. They have to make it to the battlefield like any other system. They need supplies, trained and cohesive crews, and effective command and control. The combined arms fight looks to disrupt all of that BEFORE the KEM rounds start to fly. One other point. In the many real-world scenarios of peace operations, veterans will tell you that there is a world of difference between a jeep driving up to a hostile roadblock and a 70 ton tank. Part of the goodness of a tank is the terror it inspires. LTC Bob Leonhard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 > I think heavy armor is a waste From a deterrent perspective there is a significant and often overlooked benefit to a rich country such as the U.S. fielding very sophisticated and expensive weaponry. It drives up the cost of participating in war to the point that far fewer countries can plausably enter the arena. I am afraid that if the cost of being able to start and conduct a war were reduced to just the wastage of human life that there would be a lot more countries that would not hesitate to do so. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted February 2, 2001 Share Posted February 2, 2001 I think that sometimes you need the right tool for a certain job. And I imagine that there must be situations where armor is the right tool, over mobility. There are many systems that enhance protection. Composite armor, Explosive Reactive Armor (the latest stuff has some protection against SABOT as well as HEAT attacks), countermeasures systems like the Russian Shtora, and active protection systems like the Russian Arena that intercept incoming missiles. That said, I believe that mobility may be superior to armor at the moment. I wouldn't compare the mobility of a unarmored Jeep to an M1 tank. Instead I would compare a lightly armored Apache Gunship to an M1 tank. The M1 moves at 42-45 mph on the road. The Apache can move at around 200 mph over any terrain. It has awesome mobility and firepower. I think the Apache easily demonstrates its superiority in TACOPS gameplay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 4, 2001 Share Posted February 4, 2001 > The Apache can move at around 200 mph over any terrain. It > has awesome mobility and firepower. True but only for a short period of time, then it has to go back to the roost. The grunts and the tracks have staying power. We need to keep a balanced mix of systems. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 4, 2001 Share Posted February 4, 2001 > ... speed and manueverability ... Require very different characteristics to achieve as one moves away from roads and desert/plains/steppe terrain. Again, we have to keep a mix of systems if we are to be able to always have some capability of moving forward in the 'terrain of the day'. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jaja Posted February 4, 2001 Share Posted February 4, 2001 Yes. The Apache would not do nearly as well in open as it would in closed terrain. Anyone could easily detect it and shoot it down with SAMs that way. The Apache's favorite tactic is to pop its radar (or have a Kiowa friend do so) above a hill, drop down, and kill everybody its radar detected with Hellfires. Also, why are we building the Comanche? Its full payload is only two hellfires larger the the Apache (and then it loses stealth)(in normal mode) and is fixed. Even with stealth the helicopter operates at such close ranges it is unlikely to do any good since the eye can see a helicoptor at a few thousand meters. Besides, the helicoptor is supposed to hide behind terrain which blocks radar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 Tanks will always be around and these are just a few quick reasons why. 1) Its a major stand off weapon that's pretty accurate. 2) Main gun rounds are cheaper than missiles. 3) They are used as shields for the APC that's tucked in behind during movement to contact. (Read-52cal. bullets bounce off of steel better than aluminum ) 4) Tanks are good at taking major real estate but it does take the grunt to hold it. 5) Nowhere does a tank prove it's worth more than in desert warfare. Choppers are never as vulnerable as in the desert. And the most important reason is that the turbine engine is great at quickly heating up your MRE. brad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 5, 2001 Author Share Posted February 5, 2001 I can see logic in the terror and terrain advantages of a tank. I also notice plenty of people admit tanks need infantry around to help hold the terrain. Here's another question. Why don't tanks like the M1 mount ATGMs? They already have the optics to see further than they can shoot so why not? ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted February 5, 2001 Share Posted February 5, 2001 I think the Apaches proved themselves in the open terrain during Desert Storm, destroying over a thousand targets with only one shoot down. Surprise, by flying in low and fast, appears to have been effective. But I agree that tanks are powerful in the desert, open terrain is not ideal for gunships, and that it is preferable to have a good mix of forces. > Also, why are we building the Comanche? Steath is vital. If they can't see you, its very difficult to shoot you. By reducing radar, IR, and acoustic signature, the Comanche will be harder to detect and track. If the Comanche can't be tracked by fire control/guidance systems, ZSUs and SAMs are going to have a tough time hitting it. It might be time to break out the good ol' fifty cal! > Why don't tanks like the M1 mount ATGMs? I think the ATGM would be an excellent weapon for the Abrams. ATGMs offer high accuracy at long range. With a top attack mode the missile could defeat any tank. Drawbacks would be that ATGMs are expensive, long-range shots are supposed to be rare opportunities on the battlefield, and the Army got burned with the unreliable Sheridan ATGM system. [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-05-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Originally posted by Carter: I think the Apaches proved themselves in the open terrain during Desert Storm, destroying over a thousand targets with only one shoot down. Surprise, by flying in low and fast, appears to have been effective. Granted, but the Iraqi army is not a power say like the Russian Army or any other major power that makes sure they have air defence systems with them on the battle field. Also Stealth is stealth, it doesn't make you invisable. Frankly I really don't see how you can Stealth a helicopter out. There are to many factors that would null it out, blades and weapon hardpoints to name a few. I will say this though, I was riding down a trail and a Cobra did a popup not seventyfive meters in front of me. I was so suprised I fell out of the jeep and broke my arm, the pilots were laughing so hard the Cobra was bouncing all around. brad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jaja Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 In the near future the M1 will be able to shoot 5000 meters! It also has a new top-attack shell that is called STAFF (that might be the helecoptor one, though). Even on the B-2 stealth doesn't elimanate radars effectivness; it just reduces it. At close helicoptors ranges radar will be able to see the Comanche. Also, the desert isn't completly flat. There are many nooks and dunes a helicoptor can hide behind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minmax Posted February 6, 2001 Author Share Posted February 6, 2001 Being an old air defense type I can tell you that for the most part stealth is a myth. Yes it can reduce the radar return but only at certain angles. And the real key is that rotor blades make one hell of a signature on all spectrums (Radar, Infra-red, electronic). Yes, the army and Marine attack birds train to snoop and shoot but its is still a trade off hiding in the weeds means a kid with an AK-47 is close enough to get lucky. while up higher your SAM bait. Besides if the helo wants to shoot it has to unmask. I had not heard about 5000 meter SABOT/HE capabilities on the M1s. That will make a difference. Still I wonder why the M1 don't have TOW mounts? ------------------ M. L. Johnson TAOC DAWG 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DS CavScout Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 Mounting an ATGM defeats the purpose of an M1 tank. Firepower, survivability, and maneuverability are the design concepts for the modern MBT. 120mm Cannons have gotten kills at 4000 M, the range of a TOW II:3750 M. You must remain under 3 MPH for the TOW to track correctly. Max range, the TOW takes 15 seconds flight time. Sitting in place for 15 seconds negates the survivability and maneuverability aspects of the equasion. My platoon fired 18 TOW IIA's during the war, and 4 of them riccocheted off of turrets. I'd like to keep the M1's the way they have been effective so far... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DS CavScout Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 BTW, Apaches were grounded about 1/3 of the 89 hours my unit fought due to sand storms. Yes they are badass(when you can get them off the ground.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 > I will say this though, I was riding down a > trail and a Cobra did a popup not > seventyfive meters in front of me. I was so > suprised I fell out of the jeep and broke > my arm, the pilots were laughing so hard > the Cobra was bouncing all around. I almost fell out of my chair reading this! Sorry about the arm, hope its all healed now. > Mounting an ATGM defeats the purpose of an > M1 tank. I don't think so. On the defense, in a hull down position, is a great time to use an ATGM. I've heard of TOWs hitting targets at 4000 meters. The wire is supposed to make a distinctive sound as it breaks. I'd rather have a 90% chance of hitting a target at 3750 meters with and ATGM than a (estimated) 5% chance of hitting a target at 3750 meters with a cannon round. Top attack weapons like TOW IIB's might increase Pk. New ATGMs might have more range. Have you played against OPFOR T80U-ATGM tanks? I've used them. They're way better than the regular T80Us! (In my humble opinion ) > Still I wonder why the M1 don't have TOW mounts? I think that accompanying vehicles like the Bradley and jeep have made up for the Abrams not having an ATGM. [This message has been edited by Carter (edited 02-06-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 6, 2001 Share Posted February 6, 2001 > Have you played against OPFOR T80U-ATGM tanks? I've used > them. They're way better than the regular T80Us! (In my > humble opinion ) Conventional wisdom is that the ATGM round was added to the T80 for long range sniping at Bradley APCs and other soft targets and not for use against enemy tanks. It is possible that TacOps overstates the capabilities of this ATGM round. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com [This message has been edited by MajorH (edited 02-06-2001).] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carter Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 > It is possible that TacOps overstates the > capabilities of this ATGM round. Agreed that TacOps may overstate the current Russian ATGM round (especially with improved OPFOR ATGMs selected). I've seen the current AT-11 (Refleks-M) ATGM listed as having a tandem warhead with 700-750 mm penetration. But a new ATGM round with a top-attack mode or triple-warhead should be able to take out an MBT. I was just attempting to make the point that an MBT with an advanced-ATGM would be a real threat. I should have clarified that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 I was not arguing. Just passing along an info tidbit .. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jaja Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 If you can stick a TOW on the M1 why not? As the great and holy Putt-Putt says "you never know when it might come in handy"! The 5000 meter M1 range is new. I read recently the current M1s can hit a moving target at 3200 meters while it is moving 95% of the time. I know I seem a little "pro-M1", but I'm just posting things I've heard from other sources I think are reliable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 7, 2001 Share Posted February 7, 2001 > 5000 meter M1 range ... > I read recently the current M1s can hit a > moving target at 3200 meters while it is > moving 95% of the time. It would take a lot of explanation before I could accept either of those assertions. If the 95% at 3200 meters item was even remotely true, it seems to me that the Canadian and U.S. militaries would have asked for more changes in the current TacOps data base. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jaja Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 It does seem overstated. The M1 has a laser rangefinder, automatic movement gun adjuster, and other features that make the gunners life easier. Are the hit percentages for TacOps for moving or non-moving targets? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MajorH Posted February 8, 2001 Share Posted February 8, 2001 The hit numbers shown in the weapon info window are for a stationary firer vs a stationary target. Those are the starting numbers for an engagement. They then get modified (usually downward) according to the situation at the instant of firing. ------------------ Best regards, Major H majorh@mac.com 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.