Dr. Buhl Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hiram Sedai: When I purchase armor, I've been looking at the gun size (no innuendo intended). It seems that 75MM and below does not seem to work well against German Armor. I had some mini Tank ranges set up and I learned about which tanks not to use. Anything below a Sherman 76 seems to be too inefectual. As for British Armor, I am liking the Challenger. It killed a Hetzer for me last night. My favorite German tank is the Lynx because of how fast it is and how well it covers infantry. Never heard of the jaguar though. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Hiram Don't compare the size of the gun. You have to look at the lenght of the gun. The Panther has a 75mm just as many Shermans, but it will cut through most of the allied tanks, very unlike the performance off a Sherman. The longer the gun the more velocity witch means more power against tanks. Against soft targets like inf. you don't need high velocity, and that explains why the AVRE is so poor against tanks but great against inf. As many allied soldiers put it, the Tiger and the Panther had guns "the size of a telephone pole". Take a look at the Fireflies. The turrent had to be modified to fit the gun, and the gun is much longer than the ones you normally see on a Sherman. Hope it makes sense... Dr. Buhl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pain Posted December 22, 2000 Share Posted December 22, 2000 In one of my last PBEm-battles I was on German, the enemy on British. With his challenger he took out all my tanks including a Hetzer and a Tiger... I don't have to say, that I was getting really annoyed about this. That was the day I began to fear the Challenger. Greez Pain ------------------ War is in my heart Death is by my side! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 24, 2000 Share Posted December 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Marlow: If you have information on the U.S. airborne using this vehicle, I would be very interested. To the best of my recollection, the 82nd Airborne is still using the old M551.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or they intended to buy it? Sorry, read this in a newspaper article a long while back, that's why the disclaimer is at the end of the sentence. I believe it would be about as much (if not less) use than the Tetrach... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted December 27, 2000 Share Posted December 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Or they intended to buy it? Sorry, read this in a newspaper article a long while back, that's why the disclaimer is at the end of the sentence. I believe it would be about as much (if not less) use than the Tetrach... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which is about how useful the M551s are. I was actually serious in asking if you had any information about any new U.S. decision to but the vehicle. Sorry if it came across wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 27, 2000 Share Posted December 27, 2000 Marlow, no problem. Here is a picture and some data on the little fella: Front w/20mm, rear with TOW Engine: 64 kW (87 PS) Weight: ca. 2,75 t Max speed: ca. 80 km/h Range: ca. 730 km Crew: 3 (TOW) or 2 (Bordmaschinenkanone) Armament: Automatic cannon 20 mm built in or ATGM TOW Nothing yet on whether the US are mad enough to buy it, but I keep searching. Later: okay, according to FAS, the Wiesel is only in use in Germany http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/wiesel1.htm but has been offered for export. There are some slightly more useful versions around e.g. this one called Ozelot (a small jungle cat) with four Stinger missiles: and one with a 120mm mortar, or an armoured ambulance. The Wiesel can be transported as outside luggage on a helicopter or in an Osprey (2 Wiesels/Osprey?) ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grobdeutschland Posted December 27, 2000 Share Posted December 27, 2000 Great pics! ------------------ "Far better it is To dare mighty things... Then to take rank with Those poor, timid spirits Who know neither Victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt 1899 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 27, 2000 Share Posted December 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Grobdeutschland: Great pics! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Courtesy of Jane's und Die Bundeswehr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 The 82nd have killed off their M551s. Last I heard, they had a few LAVs on loan from the USMC, but they may have returned them by now. You won't have heard of Jaguar in a WWII setting, it is a post WWII tank destroyer originally with a 90mm cannon, later with HOT and TOW missiles. I am quite happy to take a Churchill if I can. Speed isn't so much of an issue for me, I find, and I'd rather be able to take the chance of the enemy getting the shot off and it bouncing. 75 will 'do the business', especially if you bring along an Achilles or some such do deal with the enemy armor once your Churchill has it occupied. NTM ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 Originally posted by JoePrivate: Survivability is problematic as sloped armour seemed to have escaped the British designers notice but that is common to the majority of Allied AFVs. The British actually had a reasoned logic behind this one. (In addition to it probably being structurally easier to produce) They realised that if a shell hit at exactly 90 degrees to the armor, it would not ricochet. Thus, the solution would be to ensure that when the shell hit, it would be at an angle other than 90 degrees. The logic then went that given the ballistic arc of a shell, and the fact that terrain is never totally flat, if the frontal armor was constructed competely vertically, then it was virtually assured that no shell would ever strike it perpendicularly. Well.. it made sense to someone at the time!!! NTM ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 The airborne needs something more along the lines of the BMP-3 in my opinion. Those things lack firepower AND armour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: The airborne needs something more along the lines of the BMP-3 in my opinion. Those things lack firepower AND armour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But they can be transported outside a helicopter (CH-53 in the German case) or inside and Osprey. Try doing that with a BMP-3. The 20mm cannon must have something going for it - it is a classic with the German army since the Lynx and has excellent anti-infantry performance although it is pointless against anything armoured, including Mi-24s or stuff like the Flogger (? - Soviet equivalent to the A-10) (I was trained on the 20mm twin AA gun in the Luftwaffe). 120mm mortars - pack your own SP arty, we know how deadly these are from CM. The TOW is a 4km stand-off AT weapon, and with all the field conversions... The more I think about it, the more I like the Wiesel. It is fast, small, has a good range, higly mobile, well-armed and VERY flexible. Gotta love German AFVs... ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 Su-25 'Grach' (Rook). NATO codename Frogfoot. ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
British Tommy Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 There's some excellent messages here! you really know your armour! ------------------ unleash the dogs of war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: But they can be transported outside a helicopter (CH-53 in the German case) or inside and Osprey. Try doing that with a BMP-3. The 20mm cannon must have something going for it - it is a classic with the German army since the Lynx and has excellent anti-infantry performance although it is pointless against anything armoured, including Mi-24s or stuff like the Flogger (? - Soviet equivalent to the A-10) (I was trained on the 20mm twin AA gun in the Luftwaffe). 120mm mortars - pack your own SP arty, we know how deadly these are from CM. The TOW is a 4km stand-off AT weapon, and with all the field conversions... The more I think about it, the more I like the Wiesel. It is fast, small, has a good range, higly mobile, well-armed and VERY flexible. Gotta love German AFVs... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like the 120mm mortar options, but think about this: Airborne operations always take place in highly defensible terrain, like urban areas and broken ground. They are rarely ever going to have the opportunity to use long range ATGM's to any advantage. The only ATGM's that matter for the airborne are hand carried, which are easily concealable from ambush under 1km. What the airborne needs in my opinion is something with a lot of firepower to take out implaced defences. They need a modern AVRE which is deployable and survivable. It has to be capable of taking hits from RPG-7 at close range, from any angle. While I can understand a lack in armour for deployabilty (although we can airdrop about 40 tons now!), it MUST have a 105-120mm gun on it. The BMP-3 has just that, AND it has the ATGM option you like. Take a BMP-3 design and change it for 360 degree sloped armor (make it look like a flying saucer on tracks), with a swivel turret featuring the same gun design as the BMP-3, and you have yourself a potent airborne support tank. Just my take on the whole thing, and I'm speaking from an American perspective since that's all I've read on the wishes for airborne. The Wiesel doesn't provide the firepower necessary to digout fortified defenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: Airborne operations always take place in highly defensible terrain, like urban areas and broken ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not so. During Desert Shield, the 82nd deployed to block Iraqi forces, which would have been armor heavy. This was not exactly close terrain, and long range tank killers would be at a premium in any such situation. The 82nd, like other light forces, are quickly deployable, and will fight wherever necessary, even if not well suited to the situation, until heavier follow-on forces can arrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 28, 2000 Share Posted December 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trooper: Su-25 'Grach' (Rook). NATO codename Frogfoot. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Trooper - to think I had to learn all these only twelve years ago during my training... Pillar - while I can see the sense for something with a heavy hitting power, I am always careful when reading blanket statements like yours on where the next fight will be. I think there is a case for a mix&match. In some situations your suggestion would be right, in many others total overkill. If you limit yourself to one vehicle like that, you will have far fewer of them in the combat zone, and they will take longer to arrive there. Also, the vaunted Soviet/Russian doctrine and great AFVs have really helped them a lot in Chechnya - not. Or the Soviet trained armies in the Arab countries for that matter, including Iraq. I'd take the idea that Frunse has a lot to teach the NATO armies with a grain of salt. Observe them and not dismiss their teachings out of hand, yes. Lap it all up, I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 Like I said, I've only read stuff from American Airborne operators and commanders myself. I only have secondary information on the topic. Don't start thinking I'm pretending to be an expert. What do you think a good solution would be yourself then? If the Weisel can't provide the firepower in defensible terrain, and keeping in mind what you've pointed out, what sort of combination can we have? A BMP-3 design philosophy sort of combines these things, doesn't it? The BMP-3 also is very mobile, has amphib capability, and NCB protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: What do you think a good solution would be yourself then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I am absolutely no expert myself, but I see no reason to limit the discussion to having either one∨ the other. German postwar divisions had a 2/1 structure (either two brigades of Panzergrenadier and one Panzer, or the other way round). I can see no reason why you should not be able to have one 'heavy' brigade and two 'light' ones in one division, and deploy according to need first. Then again, I am also very naive, and this maybe totally inadequate regards modern needs. Basically, get a few hard hitters for the scenarios you described, and a bunch of the lighter stuff for other duties. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar: What do you think a good solution would be yourself then? If the Weisel can't provide the firepower in defensible terrain, and keeping in mind what you've pointed out, what sort of combination can we have? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since the M551 is out of the picture (thanks for the info Trooper) the 82nd will probably get something like one of the mobile gun platform systems that are currently under development/evaluation for the Army's proposed medium brigades. This will likely be a wheeled armored vehicle mounting a 105mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 Ah yes, the LAV right? Isn't that a sardine can of some sort? I think you have a good idea Andreas. The US would like it especially, since arms costs are such a big deal these days. The problem seems to be that they are going with the LAV, which is basically a Weisel without the tracks and probably without as much armour. Is that correct Marlow? A while back in the thread that was discussion the modern US Army and some special on TV talking about the death of the MBT, a guy from the US Airborne that I know made some posts. Have you guys looked at them? If you dig it up, check out his website. It's VERY informative. Interesting reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 I don't know that much about it, and your right in that I can't imagine the armor being all that thick. However, with a 105, it will probably have a lot more punch than a 20mm on the weasle, or even the 100mm (recoiless?) on the BMP 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted December 29, 2000 Share Posted December 29, 2000 The 100mm on the BMP3 is rifled I believe and fires both ATGMS and standard ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts