Prev: Ekranoplan was Re: GEV capabilities Next: Re: Supertank?

Re: Supertank?

From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:00:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Supertank?

>T-55s.  This sort of thing was also done by Canadians in WWII, called

Based on the Sherman chassis, I think????

>> This brings me to another question, how sensible are IFVs, surely
>> are there to get the infantry to where they are needed, not to fight
>> with the troops on board and to stay away from hostile panzers. I
>> realize that TOW etc. gives them a good stand off punch to supplement
>> the panzers' guns but will they survive long enough to use them?
>The problem is that a TOW has an effective range of 3,750m.  GMS/H has
>4,800m.  It is to the ATGM-armed vehicle's advantage to keep the range
>open.	However if you drop off the infantry 3,750m from the target,
>you might as well not have an armored ride for them.  If you close with
>your infantry inside and fight with the TOW, you're risking your
>troops.  This is why in Dirtside II, my IFV designs have a RFAC/2 or
>MDC/1, and an infantry batallion also has an Anti-tank company with 15
>Tank destroyers armed with 2xGMS/H.

The Canadian military is putting into service a series of armoured
based around the Swiss MOWAG chassis (rather modified).  We sell a
of this to the US as the LAV25 (for the Marines), and to Australia, I
Saudi Arabia, etc.  There are several versions (an APC, a mortar
carrier, a
TOW vehicle, a specialized recce vehicle, maybe an ARV, a command
vehicle/ambulance, etc) - most slightly different than the LAV25 (our
version of the APC will carry 8 troops instead of 6 and have the same
chaingun turret).  They were experimenting with a 105mm cannon armed
version, but I don't think anybody has bought it.  These vehicles are
designed to be self-deployable (don't need carriers like tanks do), etc.
There is a fundamental difference in design philosophy and doctrine
these type of vehicles and MBT's.  John is quite correct - there is a
conflict between the use of an armoured infantry vehicle as a "fighting"
vehicle, hence "IFV", and as a simple troop carrier - "APC".  The
military is using a system similar to John's Dirtside battalion
organization - with the infantry carrier armed with an automatic cannon
provide supporting fire for the infantry AND to fight similar vehicles
(other IFV's/APC's, trucks), and heavy anti-tank missiles concentrated
in a
separate platoon attached to the Combat Support Company at the Battalion
level (along with the 81mm mortars, assault pioneers and the recce
platoon).  There shouldn't be the conflict between whether the infantry
carrier fights as a "light tank" or to support the infantry - their
role should be to support the infantry they carry.

As we design vehicles for use in SG and Dirtside - we have to be aware
the tactical doctrine governing how they will be used.	Is the primary
fighting element the infantiers, or their vehicle?  If you have heavy
armour formations and fight a very mobile war of manoever with infantry
providing support to tanks, then you will need apc's with the ability to
fight and survive next to the tanks (ie heavier designs, heavier
heavier armour).  If you have a force focused on infantry as the primary
fighting element, with tanks, GMS-H type weapons, etc. in support of the
infantry - then their vehicles will not need to be as heavily armoured -
the infantiers will be spending less of the "fighting time" buttoned up
the vehicles will be used differently.



Prev: Ekranoplan was Re: GEV capabilities Next: Re: Supertank?