Modern Armour

Discussion in 'Postwar' started by von Poop, Feb 7, 2021.

  1. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I avoid the modern 'usage' arguments about armour, as I appreciate there's immense complexity in something I have absolutely no experience of. Though can say 'The tank is dead' thing has been going on since their inception, and alongside every single technological counter for 100+ years, and yet they still find a role.
    Za Rodinu (old member here) used to often use a phrase he attributed to Soviet thought; something like 'The greatest form of AA is a tank parked on the enemy runway'.
    Holding ground still seems to be a thing. Heavy assault still seems to be a thing. Fielding something that can obliterate lighter gear & people using pure mass, mobility, & protected/advanced heavy weapons - still a thing.

    Reading all the MoD puff on the new Challenger & the cynicism kicks in a tad, but Mr Hawkes seems rather impressed with what's been chosen, as do other grown-ups whose opinions seem more informed than many. Hope it goes well, and my very best to the squishy bits that may eventually have to face the fight from within one.

    Interesting that it still appears to be a concept. 'The design still in its early stages' a popular phrase in articles.
    I'm planning to make a bit of an effort to follow things, as procurement & development of earlier machines definitely my main historical interest. Ought to perhaps keep an eye out for parallels.
    Dave55, JimHerriot and Chris C like this.
  2. idler

    idler GeneralList

    As the KwK uses fixed ammunition, I wonder how they've solved the stowage conundrum? Has it got an Abrams-like magazine, or just reduced ammo capacity?

    And: RIP HESH
    Dave55 likes this.
  3. idler

    idler GeneralList

    I don't think any of those are insurmountable problems. Only around half of an infantry battalion are 'bayonets' - there are plenty of other jobs that need to be done, and that already includes fighting vehicle crews in some.

    Detached armoured sub-units still have to have their LAD and recovery elements. How is that done? How does it fall short? Can it be improved?

    A comment arising from the Second World War was that an armoured division's infantry brigade workshop should be replaced by a second armoured brigade workshop. Having the same capability meant that they could leapfrog each other in a move, and it solved the problem of supporting tanks, self-propelled guns and kangaroos when these were attached to brigade/battalion groups.

    We've seen the results of letting tankies decide their tactics and how much ink has academia spilt on the art or absence of tank-infantry cooperation? Isn't the best way to get them to play together to put them in the same team?
    Tricky Dicky and Chris C like this.
  4. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    What I could find about Rheinmetall Challenger 2 LEP

    - ammo capacity similar to other Western MBTs (so 40-50)
    - ammo is compartmentalised with blast doors

  5. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Sweden Army also has combined mechanised battalions.

    I think that Danish Army is following similar pattern
    Chris C likes this.
  6. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    Surely manned tanks ( or peopled tanks) would susceptible to
    Big Blue Bath Bomb


    opps sorry wrong one

    The BLU-82B/C-130 weapon system BLU-82 - Wikipedia or a similar type weapon
    Does it not make sense to have unmanned vehicles if so required.

    Apart from posturing in this modern age is the tank yesterdays weapon ?
    Would a war be fought with 2500 tanks scurrying across the Russian or Chinese border?

    We can now shut down electronics with a flick of a switch or just go field tactical nuclear
  7. ltdan

    ltdan Nietenzähler

    Given the extremely high dependence of mechanised units on logistics these days, the supposed additional logistical effort of mixed battle groups seems rather negligible to me.
    And given the high flexibility of military units that is necessary today for a variety of reasons (especially financially), patchwork units that are attuned to each other from the outset are a plausible solution. The modern magic word is "interdisciplinary cooperation".
    Whether manned or remotely controlled is then of secondary importance.
    If the armies can then manage to distil a contemporary "esprit de corps" out of this, then they are well on the way:
    Tradition does not mean preserving the ashes, but passing on the flame
    SDP likes this.
  8. Owen

    Owen -- --- -.. MOD

    Spend as much money on tanks as you like but the infantry will still moan about their boots being crap.
  9. sol

    sol Very Senior Member

    Poland is intending to buy 232 or 250 (depending on source) M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams. Basically a 4 battalions of Abrams tanks with 58 tanks per battalion. Seems like there is a chance for further purchase as Poland is also planing to replace their 4 battalions of PT-91 Twardy tanks but also, sometime in future, 4 battalions of Leopard 2.
  10. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

  11. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA

    ltdan and JimHerriot like this.
  12. JimHerriot

    JimHerriot Ready for Anything

    Touché mon ami!

    Kind regards, always,

  13. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    The Battlegroup is as a temporary operational structure fthat can be adjusted depending on the mission. Swapping one of four infantry companies for an armoured Squadron leaves an infantry battlegroup with three companies that could provide mutual support and depth.

    Back in the 1970s it was fashionable to cross attach companies and squadrons in the four armoured divisions each with five manouvre units and the silly task forces. But this was based on the assumption of early use of tactical nuclear weapons.

    By the 1980s and a lot of exercises it was obvious that divisions needed proper brigades. Furthermore, in any kind of offensive action a company squadron group had enough infantry and armour for both the suadron and company to function properly.
  14. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    See post 34.
    It is easier to manage battlaion sized units with one solely equipped with tanks and a second unit equipped with infantyrmen, APCs/ MICV mortars assult pioneers and other infantyr stuff. The administration and training is best handled separately. It also leaves tactical grouping flexible. Depending on the situation the grouping might be two armoured squadrons and one company., or maybe two infantry companys and a company squadron group?
  15. idler

    idler GeneralList

    Whatever happened to 'train hard, fight easy'? Wouldn't wartime effectiveness be worth a bit of peacetime inconvenience?

    And if you needed to imbalance your default tank-infantry group you'd simply exchange a company or squadron like you do now. The key difference being that you'd have a bit more or a bit less of what you're used to, not a little or lot of what you're not.
  16. ltdan

    ltdan Nietenzähler

    Since the problems with the completely over-bred "Puma" IFV are unlikely to be eliminated in the foreseeable future (operational readiness currently just under 20%), considerations are being made to procure the "Lynx" IFV, also designed by Rheinmetall, as a substitute.
    This would indeed be a total laughing stock, because the "Lynx" is de facto a "Puma" that was developed without the exaggerated and impractical requirement profiles of the BAAINBw* - and, what a surprise, is cheaper, more reliable and significantly more versatile.:lol:

    *An agency that considers what the Bundeswehr might need - without asking the troops for their opinion....or employing competent specialists
  17. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    A tiny touch of schadenfreude here, while noting that our Ajax system isn't... cough... going terribly well.
    If it continues going at all

    I appreciate procurement and design isn't exactly easy, but just doesn't seem to stop being a bit of a cluster, does it, no matter how many reviews or consultations.

    'Considering needs' an interesting one. Leads to considering cost, then gets complicated by competing needs and fiefdoms, then considering what else can't be bought if that need is filled, and the whole grim circular circus continues.

    Have almost completely stopped reading 'normal' news on the subject, though. Plenty of people from Janes etc. tweeting away that expose much 'newspaper' coverage as far from reliable. I'd never claim to understand the whole Byzantine business, but some can explain it pretty well, while acknowledging their personal biases.
    ltdan likes this.
  18. ltdan

    ltdan Nietenzähler

    A prime example of how good intentions eventually turn into their opposite:
    When the Bundeswehr was founded, the intention was to avoid another "state within the state" at all costs. For this reason, the entire material procurement process was deliberately made complicated.
    Over the decades, this has gotten completely out of hand due to the German tendency (read: obsession) with hyperadministration.
    As a peacekeeping measure, however, it is perfect: for over 20 years, it has been ensured that the entire newly procured material for Luftwaffe, Heer and Marine is guaranteed not to work reliably...if at all :banghead:
    von Poop likes this.
  19. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    Economis of scale, tra and career management

    There are limits to how many types of equipment and sets of skills can be managed within a battlaion sized organisation.

    You appear to be arguing for generic combat arms unit made up of armour and infantry. So why not add a slice of recce, artillery, engineers, logistics and aircraft?

    There are also `
  20. Sheldrake

    Sheldrake All over the place....

    To answer your question

    Economies of scale - training effiicency and career management.

    The primary role of commanders in peacetime is to train their troops for operations. There is some sort of sweet spot in concentrating armour and infantry in battalion sized units under commanders with that specific expertise.

    Otherwise why not provide slices of engineers, artillery or aircraft?

Share This Page