Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@c...>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:25:48 +0200
Subject: Re: [GZG] What are the pitfalls of standardised forces?
Michael Blair wrote:
>Interestingly I have seen the point made several times by
>people who should know what they are talking about (Jane's Armour 2000
>it would be a very good idea for an army to standardise its tracked
>their standard tank chassis and running gear for the MBT, SPGs, APC and
Um, well... APCs and MBTs can use the same chassis, at least if you
have any limits to your transport capacity (which the Israelis don't -
rather, the distances over which they have to transport their heavy
vehicles are so short that they can live with the heavy weight), but
the same tank chassis for MBTs and SPGs means that one of them will be
horribly sub-optimal for its role - the SPG won't benefit much from the
armour (since MBT armour is mostly designed to withstand heavy
*direct*-fire weapons, whereas the main threats to SPGs are other
*in*direct-fire weapons and aircraft both of which attack from above
than horisontally) but still has to pay all the costs, and an MBT with
SPG-style armour... well, that's a light tank, not an MBT :-/
There are certainly a bunch of vehicles that can profitably share
but IMO you need at least three chassis types: one with heavy armour,
with light armour, and probably a small jeepish vehicle for liaison work
and similar. The lightly-armoured chassis could be used for light
APCs/IFVs, command post vehicles, tactical cargo carriers, artillery,
resupply vehicles, ambulances, communications, radar carriers, AA
light tanks/"heavy scout vehicles" etc., while the heavily-armoured one
would be used for MBTs, HIFVs and those specialist engineering vehicles
that are likely to be used close enough to the enemy to risk getting
"Life is like a sewer.
What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
Gzg-l mailing list