OT: pbs frontline 'the future of war'

[:USERNAME:]

I want to drive a Buratino and meet these 'light' forces. I will light them up good..

http://call.army.mil/call/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 11-17-2000).]

[elementalwarre]

for a -bit- more info see http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press_releases/2000/F riday,%20November%2017,%202000%20Images/IAV%20Specsheet2.pdf

with add-on armor it'll take an rpg-7 hit. oh joy. so a 25mm bushmaster burst or any modern AT missile would brew it up?

i'd usually agree some armor's better than none, but -this- light?!

someone please tell me the brochure's just disinformation. -please-. armor this light isn't cavalry, it's just juicier targets than straight leg infantry

just my civvie $0.02

[Guest Pillar]

Actually, I've seen and had an opportunity to drive one of those.

They are very much adapted to situational awareness. Inside the vehicle are televisions etc. for the troops to see what is going on.

I believe they are to be used as protection from small arms. Not the kind of vehicle you'd see wandering around an assault.

Thanks for the links!

[elementalwarre]

a bit more info, although it's still more marketing than technical: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/index.html

some of the configs are ATGM, fire support, and recon. pillar, whatever the intended use, i'd bet long odds that those configs will be right in the middle of firefights pretty damn often

[Guest Pillar]

What kind of firefights do you mean?

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-18-2000).]

[Banshee]

another cnn article: http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/17/army.vehicles.ap/index.html

[DEF BUNGIS]

For anyone interested, they have made a final decision after testing vehicles here at FT Lewis.

The transormation vehicle for the new brigade combat teams will be the GM made

LAV-III.

That's a little insider trading news for you stock buyers.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[:USERNAME:]

Bungis scared of the Buratino?

[Formerly Babra]

DEF. GM got their order a week ago. Maybe if you'd shared that TWO weeks ago, it would be insider trading

------------------

I remember it perfectly: The Germans wore grey; you wore blue...

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

DEF. GM got their order a week ago. Maybe if you'd shared that TWO weeks ago, it would be insider trading

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oops.

Day late and a war short.

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Bungis scared of the Buratino?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

??

Clue me in.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS:

??

Clue me in.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://call.army.mil/call/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/fuelair/fuelair.htm

Its your worst nightmare. Active duty guys should pray they never face the likes of this..

[DEF BUNGIS]

Interesting read.

Another area fire mass destruction weapon from the commies.

I'd say I wouldn't want to be driving that thing in a war.

Kind of like being a flame thrower in CM.

[:USERNAME:]

I wouldnt be surprised if the russians havent started mounting similar weapons on choppers. The Buratino can stand off at least 3.5 Km. Thats a long squirt for a flame thrower!

[Sparky9292]

Surviving a thermobaric strike (from that article posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Units are far more concentrated in a city fight than when deployed in the countryside. Therefore, a thermobaric strike on a unit in an urban fight is likely to be very bloody. Those personnel caught directly under the aerosol cloud will die from the flame or overpressure. For those on the periphery of the strike, the injuries can be severe. Burns, broken bones, contusions from flying debris and blindness may result. Further, the crushing injuries from the overpressure can create air embolism within blood vessels, concussions, multiple internal hemorrhages in the liver and spleen, collapsed lungs, rupture of the eardrums and displacement of the eyes from their sockets.18 Displacement and tearing of internal organs can lead to peritonitus. Many of the injuries caused by thermobaric weapons are internal and may not be initially noticed by the medic or doctor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, imagine your eyeballs popping out when you get hit with an fuel air bomb.

Gosh war sucks bad. I have no desire to be in a battle today. Just more gruesome ways of killing people.... Thank god for peacetime and the fact that I've never had to worry about a draft in my lifetime.

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I wouldnt be surprised if the russians havent started mounting similar weapons on choppers. The Buratino can stand off at least 3.5 Km. Thats a long squirt for a flame thrower!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't say it's any more devistating than our MLRS.

The accuracy of long range weapons depends on lots of hi-tech stuff. I wonder exactly how they get their target data for this thing, Other than an observer.

The hidden lethality of accurate weapons is tied to the electronic war and the ability to send data over the battle field.

[gunnersman]

With all this talk about light armor and such, does this mean we will see 75mm guns again?

[Disaster]

That fuel air weapon seems more like a terror weapon to me that can be used both against troops and against civilians.

Also, it could be used against minefields I expect.

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gunnersman:

With all this talk about light armor and such, does this mean we will see 75mm guns again? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LAV-III, which is going to be the Army

transormation vehicle of choice has a 30mm

main gun.

The Anit-armor capabilities are really being beefed up though.

[Iron Duke]

What do you think Def? VII'th Corps in 1991 with Interim Vehcile...lol

Same turn out?

------------------

One shot...One Kill

[DEF BUNGIS]

Nothing will ever match the driect fire, long range killing capabilites on the ground like the modern tank.

I can't even imagine desert storm without the M1A1.

But I doubt we would be thrown into that type of scenario again without tanks.

I just don't see it happening.

[:USERNAME:]

I cant imagine the M1A1 without Desert storm.

Heavy armor like the m1A1 needs bridging eqpt that can move with it. Its just is too heavy for some parts of the world.

If it had to go up against a competant army with top attack weapons and weapons like the buratino, cluster bombs , etc. It wouldnt shine like it did in desert storm.

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I cant imagine the M1A1 without Desert storm.

Heavy armor like the m1A1 needs bridging eqpt that can move with it. Its just is too heavy for some parts of the world.

If it had to go up against a competant army with top attack weapons and weapons like the buratino, cluster bombs , etc. It wouldnt shine like it did in desert storm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

That is one of the main reasons for the transformation.

But what Duke is saying is, the eastern deserts are still a hot spots.

Will we have the same outcome using the itnterim vehicles if we have to do it again?

[Disaster@work]

This week's issue of _The Economist_ has an article about the challenges facing European tankers and it covers much of the same ground as this discussion but from a European viewpoint. It uses the upcoming decision by the Greek military to choose a supplier for up to 250 tanks. This will be closely followed by a Turkish order for 1000 tanks. The interesting thing is that once the Greeks make their decision, the Turks will immediately NOT choose the same supplier that the Greeks chose. Now, if you were a maker of tanks, would you then want to lose the Greek order in order to have a shot at the Turkish order?

Anyway, most of the article actually talks about the strengths and weaknesses of the various tank packages for European countries. The Germans tout their Leopard MBT but when they had to get to Kossovo, they needed ship transport as the tanks were too big to fit through Eastern European train tunnels. Both the French and the English tout light armour because both have active ex-colonial concerns and must be able to fly a fast reaction force. The French especially are active in Africa.

I suspect that the U.S. armour makers will be thinking more and more about light armour from a sales aspect.

------------------

----

To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm

[This message has been edited by Disaster@work (edited 11-21-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

The point of Light Vehicles is that some heavy gun support is required in urban environments, and the M1A1 cannot provide that support.

What we have today is the M1A1 with all the firepower but none of the mobility needed for urban ops, and Bradleys et al with the mobility needed for urban operations BUT without the heavy firepower. "Pop" guns don't cut it.

This is especially a problem for airborne ops.

I've invited a member of the US Army in on this discussion. If he shows up he will have much to tell you folks. If not, I'll relay what I've learned from him personally.

EDIT: The BMP-3 is a PERFECT mobile infantry support weapon with a big rifled gun (100mm), which also has ATGM capability (through the 100mm). It is basically a light tank -- very mobile, great fording capabilities, heavy firepower, cheap and light. Sure, it can't take a hit from the M1A1 but it's all about GETTING into fireposition and HITTING FIRST.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-22-2000).]