Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 16
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 5:12:02 PM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Probably a stupid question, but why not take the crew out, install an auto loader, and make the thing remote controlled? A guy with a laptop could drive it from the rear and being as there is no troops to protect in it the armor could be thinner.
View Quote


Who's going to rearm it? Refuel it? Fix it when it throws a track? Perform PMCS?
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 5:15:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Who's going to rearm it? Refuel it? Fix it when it throws a track? Perform PMCS?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Probably a stupid question, but why not take the crew out, install an auto loader, and make the thing remote controlled? A guy with a laptop could drive it from the rear and being as there is no troops to protect in it the armor could be thinner.


Who's going to rearm it? Refuel it? Fix it when it throws a track? Perform PMCS?



I did say it was a dumb question

I was thinking along the lines of a drone. Except with tracks. And a main gun.
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 5:55:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Tanks & other armored vehicles don't get DRMO'ed. Not unless they are as 10 pound pieces of paperweight. I don't think you'll find any of those with an "A" DEMIL code.
View Quote



There are tons of 20 ton MRAPs and M113's currently sitting in the hands of law enforcement right now that would love to argue that point with you.


When they switched from M60's to Abrams a bunch of the old 60's were dumped into the ocean.  Burying some of them doesn't seem too far fetched.
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 8:20:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

That was post 22222.

See, even the spirits of Arfcom are telling you to buy a PTS-2.  

It's your destiny.  

You're welcome!
View Quote



Negative, comrade.

I'm thinking maybe a BMP1 or a Sabre/Scrimitar/Scorpion.

BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.


Link Posted: 10/14/2013 8:24:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Probably a stupid question, but why not take the crew out, install an auto loader, and make the thing remote controlled? A guy with a laptop could drive it from the rear and being as there is no troops to protect in it the armor could be thinner.
View Quote

For the Airborne? No, that's dumb.




The mission of the 82nd Airborne is first, to act as a Global Response Force for the National Command Authority as the XVIII Corps' instantly deployable forced entry force. Within 18 hours the 82nd will have a battalion plus of infantry on planes, flying to go land somewhere, either by parachute or by landing the aircraft. They make an airhead. Within a few hours after that Bn will have taken off, the rest of that Brigade Combat Team will also be on the way (72-96 hours is a workable training level. Real world can be different, either more or less). Within a few days or so, the rest of the Division which is not currently engaged somewhere will also be enroute.

The purpose of the 82nd is to gain time to allow the rest of the XVIII Corps to follow-on and actually take the fight. You have the 10th Mountain, which is a rapidly deployable light infantry force, and their purpose would be to land behind the 82nd and reinforce them with more dudes. THEIR purpose, essentially, becomes a mission of taking that initiative that the 82nd gained, and holding on to it. Then you have the 3rd Infantry, who have a bunch of the heavy stuff. They can actually take a fight against pretty much any land force, and win. They're also on the shore, so they can get on ships quickly, and be on the way. The 82nd and the 10th hold on until the 3rd gets there.

101st just kind of... I don't know. They're there too. (They're supposed to be highly mobile once they get there, so they can envelop the softer portions of wherever needs an asskicking while the 3rd takes on the harder portions. They also have limited self deployment capabilites, if needed.)

The USMC has their MEUs, which act as a counterpart to the 82nd. They have a denser force (i.e. more tanks and armor), since they're already on ships, but they also have less men, since it costs so much money to keep them around. They also have more support, since the ships are already there with all the heavy support stuff. They're also slightly less responsive, since planes are faster than boats, and are more restricted to their targets, since again, they have to come in from the sea or over the sea. They generally make beachheads. To be fair, most of the hotspots will be near the sea, and the heavy Army stuff would eventually need a seaport anyway.

Ideally, the USMC and the Army will work in concert. The 82nd will take a deeper, less protected target while the MEU takes a shore based target. Both are to allow heavier follow-on forces to relieve them.

Recap: The 82nd needs to be fast to deploy. Really fast. As a Division, they need to eternally possess the fastest deploying force at the brigade level in the United States military. They need units to operate as small groups (company or smaller) for (possibly) weeks at a time with what they with them, or what can be air dropped to them, until other units are in place. What they are is a instantly deployable medium-large sized force for high intensity, low duration missions involving limited objectives. They are not designed to be a campaigning force. They are not designed to be a force which takes on the enemy main force. They sure as shit aren't for being the main effort for large scale offensive operations on the ground. That's why God invented Armored Divisions and Mech Infantry.


Now, lets apply our critical thinking skills.

Would such a force need some sort of anti-armor capabilities? Yes, they are dangling in the wind. While planning should try to place them away from the main enemy force (where tanks tend to be), in the days to weeks it takes for follow on forces to get into place, the enemy may decide that giving up some of their main objective, taking out the 82nd and then suing for peace is a better idea than sitting in place on their objective and waiting for heavy American forces to come kick the shit out of them.
Do they need organic anti-fortification capabilities? Yes. They can't rely on outside forces to be in place. To do so would be counter-intuitive, since the 82nd is supposed to be the force there first. You can't use support when your support is still trying to get on ships to come deploy. While the intent is to find softer targets to absolutely destroy, many of the Airborne objectives will necessarily be at least partially hardened.

The caveat to this is that the anti-armor and and anti-fortification capabilities need to be able to drop and be accessed by basically the first or second chalks out of the birds. These capabilities need to be there for all the various LGOPs (Little Groups of [pissed off] Paratroopers), and they have to be mission capable. You get mission capability by either having a few very reliable pieces of equipment, or a lot of moderately reliable pieces of equipment. To spread these capabilities to cover as many of the LGOPs as possible you'd want the latter option. Having a bunch of infantrymen, with Javelins and some soft skinned HMMWVs, along with TOWs and LRAS, combined with some 120mm mortars, and you're pretty well set to defend an airhead. Some would argue that the lack of armor means that this force would be easily overrun. I disagree.

Survivability is a difficult thing to judge. In a cluttered environment, like a forest or urban area, smaller is better. A platoon of light infantry would be able to hide from observation much better than a platoon of tanks, for example. Of course, they're almost as observable as tanks in open environments, such as deserts. That's where high mobility comes in, ala the Desert Rats.

It comes down to this: you survive by either not being shot at in the first place (mobility or dispersion), by shooting the guy trying to shoot you before he can shoot (technology or intelligence), or by being so tough that when he shoots at you, all he's done is to tell you where he is (armor or fortifications).

Armored Divisions, they can play the "Oh, please shoot at me, I want you to." tough game, because they have Abrams and Bradleys, and they're pretty awesome. The Abrams also weighs 70-ish tons, burns through something on the order of hundreds of pounds of fuel a day, and has a freaking jet engine. Nothing coming out of the back of a C-130 is going to be able to play that game. The only way for light forces to do that is to dig in. A paltry amount of armor just means you can't dig your equipment in as quickly, and that you're stuck to it. Light skinned HMMWVs aren't "expendable" per say, but I won't feel as obligated to operate with them, compared to a mobile gun that's design is based upon a compromise anyway. I can use my HMMWVs to disperse my men in positions, and then rely on them to own that area. If it burns in, oh well, we have plenty of them. If we get shelled, well, at least my men are in fighting positions (with overhead cover, if they know what's good for them). Our HMMWV might be toast at that point, but so would any C-130 capable "armor". Main Battle Tanks? Well, we better kill them before they shoot us, regardless of the armor that our vehicle has. A platoon with Javelins will have better luck with that than a 105mm gun on a vehicle. Tanks tend to shoot at vehicles first, especially ones with cannon-looking things pointing out the front of them.
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 8:35:40 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I find that hard to believe. An NG unit just doesn't "offer" a dozen functional tanks to the USMC. There's no way that'd be possible. You just can't write those off of the books. They'd have to go back to Anniston for a total strip down, and when I say strip I mean that the interior is stripped, they go so far to remove any POL that they actually remove the hubs of the roadwheels and remove the grease. If these truly were buried, they've been unburied by now and they're be several people who are no longer collecting Govt. paychecks. Look at the great lengths Agent Wu goes to track down $600 lasers here on ARFCOM, they'd have the entire IG tracking down a dozen buried tanks.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wish they would bring home the M60 and sell it as surplus


Sorry bro, 60s went into the ocean.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/AP/more/and%20more/more/2f1eeca0.jpg

As did some Sheridans

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/AP/more/and%20more/more/918331d8.jpg






There's a company worth of M60A3s (minus two) that were buried in the desert somewhere in the 2nd MarDiv's AO in Saudi Arabia close to the KSA / Kuwait international border.  They're still there as far as I know.  They were offered to 8th Tank Battalion's maintenance officer when the NYANG NETT'd to M1s.  I doubt they were buried with the TTS installed, but mechanically, I'd wager they're restoreable.  


I find that hard to believe. An NG unit just doesn't "offer" a dozen functional tanks to the USMC. There's no way that'd be possible. You just can't write those off of the books. They'd have to go back to Anniston for a total strip down, and when I say strip I mean that the interior is stripped, they go so far to remove any POL that they actually remove the hubs of the roadwheels and remove the grease. If these truly were buried, they've been unburied by now and they're be several people who are no longer collecting Govt. paychecks. Look at the great lengths Agent Wu goes to track down $600 lasers here on ARFCOM, they'd have the entire IG tracking down a dozen buried tanks.


Shit happens when a nation goes to war.  The build-up was so quick, that protocol went out the window in many cases.  

Hopefully, some bureaucrat reads this and has a fucking aneurysm.
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 8:48:12 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Negative, comrade.

I'm thinking maybe a BMP1 or a Sabre/Scrimitar/Scorpion.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

That was post 22222.

See, even the spirits of Arfcom are telling you to buy a PTS-2.  

It's your destiny.  

You're welcome!



Negative, comrade.

I'm thinking maybe a BMP1 or a Sabre/Scrimitar/Scorpion.



Ok, I'm cool with that.  I was just thinking of the CDI factor here ("Chicks Dig It").

Large bodies of water, combined with tracked amphibious vehicles probably net more pussy than some smelly BMP without a lord, or some English AFV named on behalf of some watery tart throwing swords at you.  I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor,  just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.

Shut up!

Oh!  Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 9:03:56 PM EDT
[#8]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





For the Airborne? No, that's dumb.
The mission of the 82nd Airborne is first, to act as a Global Response Force for the National Command Authority as the XVIII Corps' instantly deployable forced entry force. Within 18 hours the 82nd will have a battalion plus of infantry on planes, flying to go land somewhere, either by parachute or by landing the aircraft. They make an airhead. Within a few hours after that Bn will have taken off, the rest of that Brigade Combat Team will also be on the way (72-96 hours is a workable training level. Real world can be different, either more or less). Within a few days or so, the rest of the Division which is not currently engaged somewhere will also be enroute.



The purpose of the 82nd is to gain time to allow the rest of the XVIII Corps to follow-on and actually take the fight. You have the 10th Mountain, which is a rapidly deployable light infantry force, and their purpose would be to land behind the 82nd and reinforce them with more dudes. THEIR purpose, essentially, becomes a mission of taking that initiative that the 82nd gained, and holding on to it. Then you have the 3rd Infantry, who have a bunch of the heavy stuff. They can actually take a fight against pretty much any land force, and win. They're also on the shore, so they can get on ships quickly, and be on the way. The 82nd and the 10th hold on until the 3rd gets there.



101st just kind of... I don't know. They're there too. (They're supposed to be highly mobile once they get there, so they can envelop the softer portions of wherever needs an asskicking while the 3rd takes on the harder portions. They also have limited self deployment capabilites, if needed.)



The USMC has their MEUs, which act as a counterpart to the 82nd. They have a denser force (i.e. more tanks and armor), since they're already on ships, but they also have less men, since it costs so much money to keep them around. They also have more support, since the ships are already there with all the heavy support stuff. They're also slightly less responsive, since planes are faster than boats, and are more restricted to their targets, since again, they have to come in from the sea or over the sea. They generally make beachheads. To be fair, most of the hotspots will be near the sea, and the heavy Army stuff would eventually need a seaport anyway.



Ideally, the USMC and the Army will work in concert. The 82nd will take a deeper, less protected target while the MEU takes a shore based target. Both are to allow heavier follow-on forces to relieve them.



Recap: The 82nd needs to be fast to deploy. Really fast. As a Division, they need to eternally possess the fastest deploying force at the brigade level in the United States military. They need units to operate as small groups (company or smaller) for (possibly) weeks at a time with what they with them, or what can be air dropped to them, until other units are in place. What they are is a instantly deployable medium-large sized force for high intensity, low duration missions involving limited objectives. They are not designed to be a campaigning force. They are not designed to be a force which takes on the enemy main force. They sure as shit aren't for being the main effort for large scale offensive operations on the ground. That's why God invented Armored Divisions and Mech Infantry.





Now, lets apply our critical thinking skills.



Would such a force need some sort of anti-armor capabilities? Yes, they are dangling in the wind. While planning should try to place them away from the main enemy force (where tanks tend to be), in the days to weeks it takes for follow on forces to get into place, the enemy may decide that giving up some of their main objective, taking out the 82nd and then suing for peace is a better idea than sitting in place on their objective and waiting for heavy American forces to come kick the shit out of them.

Do they need organic anti-fortification capabilities? Yes. They can't rely on outside forces to be in place. To do so would be counter-intuitive, since the 82nd is supposed to be the force there first. You can't use support when your support is still trying to get on ships to come deploy. While the intent is to find softer targets to absolutely destroy, many of the Airborne objectives will necessarily be at least partially hardened.



The caveat to this is that the anti-armor and and anti-fortification capabilities need to be able to drop and be accessed by basically the first or second chalks out of the birds. These capabilities need to be there for all the various LGOPs (Little Groups of [pissed off] Paratroopers), and they have to be mission capable. You get mission capability by either having a few very reliable pieces of equipment, or a lot of moderately reliable pieces of equipment. To spread these capabilities to cover as many of the LGOPs as possible you'd want the latter option. Having a bunch of infantrymen, with Javelins and some soft skinned HMMWVs, along with TOWs and LRAS, combined with some 120mm mortars, and you're pretty well set to defend an airhead. Some would argue that the lack of armor means that this force would be easily overrun. I disagree.



Survivability is a difficult thing to judge. In a cluttered environment, like a forest or urban area, smaller is better. A platoon of light infantry would be able to hide from observation much better than a platoon of tanks, for example. Of course, they're almost as observable as tanks in open environments, such as deserts. That's where high mobility comes in, ala the Desert Rats.



It comes down to this: you survive by either not being shot at in the first place (mobility or dispersion), by shooting the guy trying to shoot you before he can shoot (technology or intelligence), or by being so tough that when he shoots at you, all he's done is to tell you where he is (armor or fortifications).



Armored Divisions, they can play the "Oh, please shoot at me, I want you to." tough game, because they have Abrams and Bradleys, and they're pretty awesome. The Abrams also weighs 70-ish tons, burns through something on the order of hundreds of pounds of fuel a day, and has a freaking jet engine. Nothing coming out of the back of a C-130 is going to be able to play that game. The only way for light forces to do that is to dig in. A paltry amount of armor just means you can't dig your equipment in as quickly, and that you're stuck to it. Light skinned HMMWVs aren't "expendable" per say, but I won't feel as obligated to operate with them, compared to a mobile gun that's design is based upon a compromise anyway. I can use my HMMWVs to disperse my men in positions, and then rely on them to own that area. If it burns in, oh well, we have plenty of them. If we get shelled, well, at least my men are in fighting positions (with overhead cover, if they know what's good for them). Our HMMWV might be toast at that point, but so would any C-130 capable "armor". Main Battle Tanks? Well, we better kill them before they shoot us, regardless of the armor that our vehicle has. A platoon with Javelins will have better luck with that than a 105mm gun on a vehicle. Tanks tend to shoot at vehicles first, especially ones with cannon-looking things pointing out the front of them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

Probably a stupid question, but why not take the crew out, install an auto loader, and make the thing remote controlled? A guy with a laptop could drive it from the rear and being as there is no troops to protect in it the armor could be thinner.


For the Airborne? No, that's dumb.
The mission of the 82nd Airborne is first, to act as a Global Response Force for the National Command Authority as the XVIII Corps' instantly deployable forced entry force. Within 18 hours the 82nd will have a battalion plus of infantry on planes, flying to go land somewhere, either by parachute or by landing the aircraft. They make an airhead. Within a few hours after that Bn will have taken off, the rest of that Brigade Combat Team will also be on the way (72-96 hours is a workable training level. Real world can be different, either more or less). Within a few days or so, the rest of the Division which is not currently engaged somewhere will also be enroute.



The purpose of the 82nd is to gain time to allow the rest of the XVIII Corps to follow-on and actually take the fight. You have the 10th Mountain, which is a rapidly deployable light infantry force, and their purpose would be to land behind the 82nd and reinforce them with more dudes. THEIR purpose, essentially, becomes a mission of taking that initiative that the 82nd gained, and holding on to it. Then you have the 3rd Infantry, who have a bunch of the heavy stuff. They can actually take a fight against pretty much any land force, and win. They're also on the shore, so they can get on ships quickly, and be on the way. The 82nd and the 10th hold on until the 3rd gets there.



101st just kind of... I don't know. They're there too. (They're supposed to be highly mobile once they get there, so they can envelop the softer portions of wherever needs an asskicking while the 3rd takes on the harder portions. They also have limited self deployment capabilites, if needed.)



The USMC has their MEUs, which act as a counterpart to the 82nd. They have a denser force (i.e. more tanks and armor), since they're already on ships, but they also have less men, since it costs so much money to keep them around. They also have more support, since the ships are already there with all the heavy support stuff. They're also slightly less responsive, since planes are faster than boats, and are more restricted to their targets, since again, they have to come in from the sea or over the sea. They generally make beachheads. To be fair, most of the hotspots will be near the sea, and the heavy Army stuff would eventually need a seaport anyway.



Ideally, the USMC and the Army will work in concert. The 82nd will take a deeper, less protected target while the MEU takes a shore based target. Both are to allow heavier follow-on forces to relieve them.



Recap: The 82nd needs to be fast to deploy. Really fast. As a Division, they need to eternally possess the fastest deploying force at the brigade level in the United States military. They need units to operate as small groups (company or smaller) for (possibly) weeks at a time with what they with them, or what can be air dropped to them, until other units are in place. What they are is a instantly deployable medium-large sized force for high intensity, low duration missions involving limited objectives. They are not designed to be a campaigning force. They are not designed to be a force which takes on the enemy main force. They sure as shit aren't for being the main effort for large scale offensive operations on the ground. That's why God invented Armored Divisions and Mech Infantry.





Now, lets apply our critical thinking skills.



Would such a force need some sort of anti-armor capabilities? Yes, they are dangling in the wind. While planning should try to place them away from the main enemy force (where tanks tend to be), in the days to weeks it takes for follow on forces to get into place, the enemy may decide that giving up some of their main objective, taking out the 82nd and then suing for peace is a better idea than sitting in place on their objective and waiting for heavy American forces to come kick the shit out of them.

Do they need organic anti-fortification capabilities? Yes. They can't rely on outside forces to be in place. To do so would be counter-intuitive, since the 82nd is supposed to be the force there first. You can't use support when your support is still trying to get on ships to come deploy. While the intent is to find softer targets to absolutely destroy, many of the Airborne objectives will necessarily be at least partially hardened.



The caveat to this is that the anti-armor and and anti-fortification capabilities need to be able to drop and be accessed by basically the first or second chalks out of the birds. These capabilities need to be there for all the various LGOPs (Little Groups of [pissed off] Paratroopers), and they have to be mission capable. You get mission capability by either having a few very reliable pieces of equipment, or a lot of moderately reliable pieces of equipment. To spread these capabilities to cover as many of the LGOPs as possible you'd want the latter option. Having a bunch of infantrymen, with Javelins and some soft skinned HMMWVs, along with TOWs and LRAS, combined with some 120mm mortars, and you're pretty well set to defend an airhead. Some would argue that the lack of armor means that this force would be easily overrun. I disagree.



Survivability is a difficult thing to judge. In a cluttered environment, like a forest or urban area, smaller is better. A platoon of light infantry would be able to hide from observation much better than a platoon of tanks, for example. Of course, they're almost as observable as tanks in open environments, such as deserts. That's where high mobility comes in, ala the Desert Rats.



It comes down to this: you survive by either not being shot at in the first place (mobility or dispersion), by shooting the guy trying to shoot you before he can shoot (technology or intelligence), or by being so tough that when he shoots at you, all he's done is to tell you where he is (armor or fortifications).



Armored Divisions, they can play the "Oh, please shoot at me, I want you to." tough game, because they have Abrams and Bradleys, and they're pretty awesome. The Abrams also weighs 70-ish tons, burns through something on the order of hundreds of pounds of fuel a day, and has a freaking jet engine. Nothing coming out of the back of a C-130 is going to be able to play that game. The only way for light forces to do that is to dig in. A paltry amount of armor just means you can't dig your equipment in as quickly, and that you're stuck to it. Light skinned HMMWVs aren't "expendable" per say, but I won't feel as obligated to operate with them, compared to a mobile gun that's design is based upon a compromise anyway. I can use my HMMWVs to disperse my men in positions, and then rely on them to own that area. If it burns in, oh well, we have plenty of them. If we get shelled, well, at least my men are in fighting positions (with overhead cover, if they know what's good for them). Our HMMWV might be toast at that point, but so would any C-130 capable "armor". Main Battle Tanks? Well, we better kill them before they shoot us, regardless of the armor that our vehicle has. A platoon with Javelins will have better luck with that than a 105mm gun on a vehicle. Tanks tend to shoot at vehicles first, especially ones with cannon-looking things pointing out the front of them.


helluva summation!
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 9:50:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That's an excellent pic of the older BMP1 with it's AT-3 Sagger (9K11 Malyutka) ATGM launcher rail mounted above the 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon.

That was a deadly threat to our MBTs at one time, and caused considerable concern in the armor community.  Not entirely ineffective, either.  To a degree, it gave a lightweight, thinly armored APC the theoretical ability to destroy MBTs with a HEAT warhead that was effective enough to punch through the relatively thin armor of our M48s and M60s.  Back when we had M60A1s, we used to practice "Saggar drills".
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Just for shits and grins, the business end of a BMP1's 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon.  IIRC, it fires a modified RPG round via autoloader.


Modified SPG-9 rounds.  SPG-9 is similar to the Carl Gustav - kind of a recoiless rifle.




The SPG-9 is not like a Carl-Gustav, comparing the two would be like comparing an M2 .50 and a Bren gun.  The Carl G is man portable and rifled.  The SPG-9 is tripod mounted, more similar to an M40 or B10.  

The 73mm gun on a BMP-1 fires PG-9's, PG-15's, and OG-9's.

The PG-9 and PG-15's are rockets, not recoilless rifle rounds.  They are based off of the RPG system as USMC Tanker said.

They are similar to a PG-7, except they use a different expelling charge where the PG-7 has a tube filled with nitrocellulose strips the PG-9 has a booster cup affixed to the rear.


I know the actual details are hard for you to see.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/daemon734/tank2.jpg


Don't worry about struggling to answer questions outside of your knowledge,  because me and USMC Tanker seem to have a much better view than you.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/daemon734/100_01322.jpg

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m303/daemon734/102_0560.jpg


That's an excellent pic of the older BMP1 with it's AT-3 Sagger (9K11 Malyutka) ATGM launcher rail mounted above the 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon.

That was a deadly threat to our MBTs at one time, and caused considerable concern in the armor community.  Not entirely ineffective, either.  To a degree, it gave a lightweight, thinly armored APC the theoretical ability to destroy MBTs with a HEAT warhead that was effective enough to punch through the relatively thin armor of our M48s and M60s.  Back when we had M60A1s, we used to practice "Saggar drills".


Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.
Link Posted: 10/14/2013 11:44:00 PM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.
View Quote


After it's use in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, there were some groups that thought that the combination of HEAT warheads and ATGMs had made the tank a thing of the past.

In fact, consider the Leopard 1.  The modern Leopard 2 has heavy composite armor that's meant to shrug off hits from most anti tank weapons.  When the Leopard 1 was built in the 1960s it's designers had decided that with the armor technology of the time, it simply wasn't possible to protect a tank against HEAT warheads.  The armor on the hull is only thick enough to stop small autocannon rounds.  The turret armor is better, but it's still very thin.  The idea was that a light, fast tank with a powerful gun could survive by simply not getting hit, because there was no way to stop a hit from killing you.

In terms of weapons, there were several vehicles designed around that time that were supposed to use ATGMs and HEAT shells exclusively for tank busting, they didn't even bother with AP ammo as HEAT was seen as being much more effective.  The M551 Sherridan and M60A2 Patton were supposed to use a gun launched guided missile (Shillelagh) to kill tanks at a distance, and use conventional HEAT rounds to kill tanks close in.  At that time the guided missiles they had required a rather substantial minimum range, so conventional HEAT rounds were needed to cover it.  The BMP-1 had a sort of similar setup.  Missiles for long range, and it's weird 73mm rocket-gun-thing for infantry support, and tanks too close for missiles.

Obviously, things changed.  Armor got better, particularly against HEAT warheads, and heavily armored tanks live on.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 3:44:11 AM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.
View Quote


Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  

From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.

And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 3:46:45 AM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 4:24:51 AM EDT
[#13]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  



From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.



And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.





Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  



From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.



And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  


The Czechs and Yugos did.



The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.



 
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:03:28 AM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.


Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  

From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.

And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  

The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 


Indeed. They copied a lot of German stuff and just kept making it after the war.

Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:44:57 AM EDT
[#15]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.
View Quote


It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.



 
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:57:52 AM EDT
[#16]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war. I imagine we were quite concerned with it.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:



Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.


It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war. I imagine we were quite concerned with it.



sagger was the real deal. in the 80's the sagger was every tankers nightmare. if it was said once it was said a million times, you want armor support you have to knock out the saggers.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 6:03:01 AM EDT
[#17]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





For the Airborne? No, that's dumb.
The mission of the 82nd Airborne is first, to act as a Global Response Force for the National Command Authority as the XVIII Corps' instantly deployable forced entry force. Within 18 hours the 82nd will have a battalion plus of infantry on planes, flying to go land somewhere, either by parachute or by landing the aircraft. They make an airhead. Within a few hours after that Bn will have taken off, the rest of that Brigade Combat Team will also be on the way (72-96 hours is a workable training level. Real world can be different, either more or less). Within a few days or so, the rest of the Division which is not currently engaged somewhere will also be enroute.



The purpose of the 82nd is to gain time to allow the rest of the XVIII Corps to follow-on and actually take the fight. You have the 10th Mountain, which is a rapidly deployable light infantry force, and their purpose would be to land behind the 82nd and reinforce them with more dudes. THEIR purpose, essentially, becomes a mission of taking that initiative that the 82nd gained, and holding on to it. Then you have the 3rd Infantry, who have a bunch of the heavy stuff. They can actually take a fight against pretty much any land force, and win. They're also on the shore, so they can get on ships quickly, and be on the way. The 82nd and the 10th hold on until the 3rd gets there.



snipped....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:

Probably a stupid question, but why not take the crew out, install an auto loader, and make the thing remote controlled? A guy with a laptop could drive it from the rear and being as there is no troops to protect in it the armor could be thinner.


For the Airborne? No, that's dumb.
The mission of the 82nd Airborne is first, to act as a Global Response Force for the National Command Authority as the XVIII Corps' instantly deployable forced entry force. Within 18 hours the 82nd will have a battalion plus of infantry on planes, flying to go land somewhere, either by parachute or by landing the aircraft. They make an airhead. Within a few hours after that Bn will have taken off, the rest of that Brigade Combat Team will also be on the way (72-96 hours is a workable training level. Real world can be different, either more or less). Within a few days or so, the rest of the Division which is not currently engaged somewhere will also be enroute.



The purpose of the 82nd is to gain time to allow the rest of the XVIII Corps to follow-on and actually take the fight. You have the 10th Mountain, which is a rapidly deployable light infantry force, and their purpose would be to land behind the 82nd and reinforce them with more dudes. THEIR purpose, essentially, becomes a mission of taking that initiative that the 82nd gained, and holding on to it. Then you have the 3rd Infantry, who have a bunch of the heavy stuff. They can actually take a fight against pretty much any land force, and win. They're also on the shore, so they can get on ships quickly, and be on the way. The 82nd and the 10th hold on until the 3rd gets there.



snipped....


I think OEF and OIF pretty much cancelled out the concept of deploying complete divisions under the command of their habitual corps HQ.



For some reason, which is unclear to me, the JCS and the combatant regional commanders have seemed to decide that ad hoc command structures controlling units that had no habitual experience working with either the other maneuver forces of the ad hoc division / corps-level HQ was a far superior idea.



I mean, why know the guys you're fighting alongside of or the the guy issuing orders or his staff? What purpose does that possibly serve?



So now we treat divisional HQ s as super-brigade HQs*, where they are plucked out of "their" division, deployed and assigned (potentially ad hoc) brigades from other notional divisions, services or even coalition forces and corps HQs are turned into JTF HQs that also have an administrative role towards "their" divisions when in CONUS.



So, for a fictional example, the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 82nd (nominally XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg) deploys to Afghanistan where it is under the command and control of a "regional command" made up (mostly) of the 1st Armored Division staff (nominally III Corps, Fort Hood), augmented by USAF and USN individual augmentees which is turn controlled by a JTF made up (mostly) of I Corps HQ (Fort Lewis), augmented by individual augmentees from USAF, USN, Romania, and Uruguay. And their logistics is provided by elements of 21st Theater Sustainment Command (nominally US Army Europe, Germany) and the 13th Sustainment Command (Fort Hood - nominally III Corps).



*Brigades are, doctrinally, supposed to command and maneuver battalions assigned to them by the division HQ - they were never intended (going back to the ROAD TO&E in the late 50s /early '60s) to be static formations that "always" had "x" battalions - the concept was they would command 3-9 battalions as needed.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 6:24:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.


Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  

From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.

And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  

The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 


I saw a Sherman tank on the news still in the fight when the Serbs and Bosnians were going at it in the '90s.  

It was weird to see the TC in the open hatch of that Sherman turret, wearing a Soviet style cloth tanker's helmet.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 7:00:24 AM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.

It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.
 


To add to this post, the BMP was a rather revolutionary AFV for the time.  More than an armored "battlefield taxi" like the M113, infantry riding in a BMP could continue to fight from inside by firing their weapons out of ports on the sides of the vehicle, and more importantly, do so in an CBR environment because it was equipped with an NBC overpressure system.  The 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon and AT-3 Saggar missile gave it formidable anti-armor capability at the time.  It made the offensive tactical employment of nuclear weapons a practical option.  It had a low silhouette which made it very uncomfortable to ride in, but also made for a much smaller target.  

In comparison, we had the tall, boxy, mostly unarmed M113 (which replaced the all-steel M59 APC) manufactured out of aluminum-an extremely poor material to make AFVs with, since aluminum doesn't react well to HEAT warheads.  Our troops could ride around in one but not much else since the grunts had to dismount the vehicle to fight, and except for a cal. .50 Browning MG or 7.62mm M60 GPMG for the VC, it wasn't armed with a dedicated weapon system designed for offensive use.  

Oops.  In this case the Russians were forward thinking, and they illustrated once again why you don't get complacent around them.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 7:18:26 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Indeed. They copied a lot of German stuff and just kept making it after the war.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 


Indeed. They copied a lot of German stuff and just kept making it after the war.



I was in Bosnia in 2004... you couldn't throw a rock anywhere in the former Yugoslavia without hitting a land mine, mass grave site, or one of those MG42 copies.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 7:27:25 AM EDT
[#21]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
To add to this post, the BMP was a rather revolutionary AFV for the time.  More than an armored "battlefield taxi" like the M113, infantry riding in a BMP could continue to fight from inside by firing their weapons out of ports on the sides of the vehicle, and more importantly, do so in an CBR environment because it was equipped with an NBC overpressure system.  The 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon and AT-3 Saggar missile gave it formidable anti-armor capability at the time.  It made the offensive tactical employment of nuclear weapons a practical option.  It had a low silhouette which made it very uncomfortable to ride in, but also made for a much smaller target.  



In comparison, we had the tall, boxy, mostly unarmed M113 (which replaced the all-steel M59 APC) manufactured out of aluminum-an extremely poor material to make AFVs with, since aluminum doesn't react well to HEAT warheads.  Our troops could ride around in one but not much else since the grunts had to dismount the vehicle to fight, and except for a cal. .50 Browning MG or 7.62mm M60 GPMG for the VC, it wasn't armed with a dedicated weapon system designed for offensive use.  



Oops.  In this case the Russians were forward thinking, and they illustrated once again why you don't get complacent around them.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:



Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.


It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.

 




To add to this post, the BMP was a rather revolutionary AFV for the time.  More than an armored "battlefield taxi" like the M113, infantry riding in a BMP could continue to fight from inside by firing their weapons out of ports on the sides of the vehicle, and more importantly, do so in an CBR environment because it was equipped with an NBC overpressure system.  The 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon and AT-3 Saggar missile gave it formidable anti-armor capability at the time.  It made the offensive tactical employment of nuclear weapons a practical option.  It had a low silhouette which made it very uncomfortable to ride in, but also made for a much smaller target.  



In comparison, we had the tall, boxy, mostly unarmed M113 (which replaced the all-steel M59 APC) manufactured out of aluminum-an extremely poor material to make AFVs with, since aluminum doesn't react well to HEAT warheads.  Our troops could ride around in one but not much else since the grunts had to dismount the vehicle to fight, and except for a cal. .50 Browning MG or 7.62mm M60 GPMG for the VC, it wasn't armed with a dedicated weapon system designed for offensive use.  



Oops.  In this case the Russians were forward thinking, and they illustrated once again why you don't get complacent around them.




 
I laugh about that because on the discovery channel they did a a "top ten infantry fighting vehicles" and at the very top of the list, they put the M113 as #1




LOL
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:37:01 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I saw a Sherman tank on the news still in the fight when the Serbs and Bosnians were going at it in the '90s.  

It was weird to see the TC in the open hatch of that Sherman turret, wearing a Soviet style cloth tanker's helmet.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.


Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  

From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.

And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  

The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 


I saw a Sherman tank on the news still in the fight when the Serbs and Bosnians were going at it in the '90s.  

It was weird to see the TC in the open hatch of that Sherman turret, wearing a Soviet style cloth tanker's helmet.


Some guy on steel soldiers just bought an m4 Sherman that was rusting away In a field.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:40:41 AM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  I laugh about that because on the discovery channel they did a a "top ten infantry fighting vehicles" and at the very top of the list, they put the M113 as #1

LOL
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.

It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.
 


To add to this post, the BMP was a rather revolutionary AFV for the time.  More than an armored "battlefield taxi" like the M113, infantry riding in a BMP could continue to fight from inside by firing their weapons out of ports on the sides of the vehicle, and more importantly, do so in an CBR environment because it was equipped with an NBC overpressure system.  The 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon and AT-3 Saggar missile gave it formidable anti-armor capability at the time.  It made the offensive tactical employment of nuclear weapons a practical option.  It had a low silhouette which made it very uncomfortable to ride in, but also made for a much smaller target.  

In comparison, we had the tall, boxy, mostly unarmed M113 (which replaced the all-steel M59 APC) manufactured out of aluminum-an extremely poor material to make AFVs with, since aluminum doesn't react well to HEAT warheads.  Our troops could ride around in one but not much else since the grunts had to dismount the vehicle to fight, and except for a cal. .50 Browning MG or 7.62mm M60 GPMG for the VC, it wasn't armed with a dedicated weapon system designed for offensive use.  

Oops.  In this case the Russians were forward thinking, and they illustrated once again why you don't get complacent around them.

  I laugh about that because on the discovery channel they did a a "top ten infantry fighting vehicles" and at the very top of the list, they put the M113 as #1

LOL


Well, we made so many of them that perhaps the thought was that the Russians would run out of ammo before we ran out of APCs?
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:46:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

  I laugh about that because on the discovery channel they did a a "top ten infantry fighting vehicles" and at the very top of the list, they put the M113 as #1

LOL
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.

It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.
 


To add to this post, the BMP was a rather revolutionary AFV for the time.  More than an armored "battlefield taxi" like the M113, infantry riding in a BMP could continue to fight from inside by firing their weapons out of ports on the sides of the vehicle, and more importantly, do so in an CBR environment because it was equipped with an NBC overpressure system.  The 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon and AT-3 Saggar missile gave it formidable anti-armor capability at the time.  It made the offensive tactical employment of nuclear weapons a practical option.  It had a low silhouette which made it very uncomfortable to ride in, but also made for a much smaller target.  

In comparison, we had the tall, boxy, mostly unarmed M113 (which replaced the all-steel M59 APC) manufactured out of aluminum-an extremely poor material to make AFVs with, since aluminum doesn't react well to HEAT warheads.  Our troops could ride around in one but not much else since the grunts had to dismount the vehicle to fight, and except for a cal. .50 Browning MG or 7.62mm M60 GPMG for the VC, it wasn't armed with a dedicated weapon system designed for offensive use.  

Oops.  In this case the Russians were forward thinking, and they illustrated once again why you don't get complacent around them.

  I laugh about that because on the discovery channel they did a a "top ten infantry fighting vehicles" and at the very top of the list, they put the M113 as #1

LOL


#1? Really?

Wow.  

Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:47:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Some guy on steel soldiers just bought an m4 Sherman that was rusting away In a field.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BUT a Sdkfz 222 or 247 replica built on a free chevy 3500 SRW frame sounds nice.


Didn't the Czechs keep the German WW II half tracks in production into the 60s?  

From what I understand they're not hard to find, just massive maintenance hogs.

And the Germans made Hanomag 250s with 222 turrets as scout vehicles...  

The Czechs and Yugos did.

The Yugos kept their WWII surplus in working order up until the mid seventies. You can literally find empty lots with a few PaK guns and graffiti covered tanks over there.
 


I saw a Sherman tank on the news still in the fight when the Serbs and Bosnians were going at it in the '90s.  

It was weird to see the TC in the open hatch of that Sherman turret, wearing a Soviet style cloth tanker's helmet.


Some guy on steel soldiers just bought an m4 Sherman that was rusting away In a field.


I know where you can pick up a turret for one.  It's just sitting there without a home.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:52:10 AM EDT
[#26]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
#1? Really?



Wow.  



View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:


Quoted:



Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.


It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.

 




To add to this post, the BMP was a rather revolutionary AFV for the time.  More than an armored "battlefield taxi" like the M113, infantry riding in a BMP could continue to fight from inside by firing their weapons out of ports on the sides of the vehicle, and more importantly, do so in an CBR environment because it was equipped with an NBC overpressure system.  The 73mm Grom smoothbore cannon and AT-3 Saggar missile gave it formidable anti-armor capability at the time.  It made the offensive tactical employment of nuclear weapons a practical option.  It had a low silhouette which made it very uncomfortable to ride in, but also made for a much smaller target.  



In comparison, we had the tall, boxy, mostly unarmed M113 (which replaced the all-steel M59 APC) manufactured out of aluminum-an extremely poor material to make AFVs with, since aluminum doesn't react well to HEAT warheads.  Our troops could ride around in one but not much else since the grunts had to dismount the vehicle to fight, and except for a cal. .50 Browning MG or 7.62mm M60 GPMG for the VC, it wasn't armed with a dedicated weapon system designed for offensive use.  



Oops.  In this case the Russians were forward thinking, and they illustrated once again why you don't get complacent around them.


  I laugh about that because on the discovery channel they did a a "top ten infantry fighting vehicles" and at the very top of the list, they put the M113 as #1



LOL





#1? Really?



Wow.  







 
I'll find a youtube link. Hahaha
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:54:07 AM EDT
[#27]
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 9:09:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote


Dare I disagree with them and suggest that it doesn't really matter if the armor is aluminum or steel?  Even if it were made out of steel, I imagine that any HEAT warhead detonating on the hull would still splatter the inside with a molten jet of copper and steel.  You shoot an APC (Oh I also don't think they should include an APC in an IFV competition...) with an RPG meant to whack a tank, it's going to die.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 9:16:37 AM EDT
[#29]
I've seen pics of M113s from Vietnam where they literally looked like overfilled dumpsters with garbage stacked around them.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 9:18:44 AM EDT
[#30]
What about the aeros airship that is supposed to have a cargo capacity of 66 ton and fly at 115 knots. It can also deliver its cargo anywhere like a helo.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 10:02:52 AM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.

It decimated Israeli tank formations in the beginning of the '73 war.  I imagine we were quite concerned with it.
 


I thought the Spandrel was the big threat.


I like it when I learn new shit.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 10:10:39 AM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Didn't know the Sagger was that feared. Always looked like it was just posturing by the Russians to me.
View Quote


I would say that Com-Bloc stuff in general was looked at with a lot more respect and caution before the US military decided to open up the Museum of Blown-to-Shit Russian Stuff outside Baghdad in '91.  
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 2:55:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote


Well, you watch that and you can see how they get to this result.

They judge them based on:

Innovation
Carrying capacity
Production length
Mobility
Service time

By those standards (and ignoring armor and firepower, places it's notoriously weak) it probably is #1.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 3:42:33 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Well, you watch that and you can see how they get to this result.

They judge them based on:

Innovation
Carrying capacity
Production length
Mobility
Service time

By those standards (and ignoring armor and firepower, places it's notoriously weak) it probably is #1.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Well, you watch that and you can see how they get to this result.

They judge them based on:

Innovation
Carrying capacity
Production length
Mobility
Service time

By those standards (and ignoring armor and firepower, places it's notoriously weak) it probably is #1.


It does the job.
It will get your through small arms and artillery fragments, carries a lot of joes.  is very reliable.  good cross country mobility.  easy to maintain.
she ain't sexy, but she works.

and, yes I was an 113A3 guy back in the day.
everybody loves their ride.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 3:51:18 PM EDT
[#35]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It does the job.

It will get your through small arms and artillery fragments, carries a lot of joes.  is very reliable.  good cross country mobility.  easy to maintain.

she ain't sexy, but she works.



and, yes I was an 113A3 guy back in the day.

everybody loves their ride.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:






Well, you watch that and you can see how they get to this result.



They judge them based on:



Innovation

Carrying capacity

Production length

Mobility

Service time



By those standards (and ignoring armor and firepower, places it's notoriously weak) it probably is #1.




It does the job.

It will get your through small arms and artillery fragments, carries a lot of joes.  is very reliable.  good cross country mobility.  easy to maintain.

she ain't sexy, but she works.



and, yes I was an 113A3 guy back in the day.

everybody loves their ride.
Bring back the Gavin!




 
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 3:56:15 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Bring back the Gavin!










 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Well, you watch that and you can see how they get to this result.

They judge them based on:

Innovation
Carrying capacity
Production length
Mobility
Service time

By those standards (and ignoring armor and firepower, places it's notoriously weak) it probably is #1.


It does the job.
It will get your through small arms and artillery fragments, carries a lot of joes.  is very reliable.  good cross country mobility.  easy to maintain.
she ain't sexy, but she works.

and, yes I was an 113A3 guy back in the day.
everybody loves their ride.
Bring back the Gavin!










 




Link Posted: 10/15/2013 4:06:23 PM EDT
[#37]
ROFL I forgot Marines are narcissists.





I actually talked to him about that once VIA his FB page...



It was an interesting conversation.
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:34:41 PM EDT
[#38]
nobody? Aeros?





Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:38:14 PM EDT
[#39]
I just saw a bunch of M48 Pattons,  they're Medium tanks  but we have them and they're slated for air force targets.  They're only 49 tonnes (short tonnes)

Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:42:07 PM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Anywhere you want a light tank is probably somewhere it is tough to bring a C-130 into.  Advanced man portable air defense systems, advanced tactical SAMs, modernized air defense artillery, etc all pose significant threats, and any adversary that has those probably also has pretty decent anti-armor capabilities (mines, ATGMs, etc).  So I kind of question the entire premise.  If anything, light infantry need mobility, not protection, so that we can drop them close but just outside the heaviest air defenses and have them zip the last few klicks with some sort of transport, at least for logistics support.

Also, designing for the C-130 seems like a significant self-imposed limitation.  We have a substantial C-17 fleet, and the C-17 brings a lot more capability to the table.
View Quote



Considering the use of airborne forces is predominantly to create a beachhead, I'd say you're way off. The Bridge to Far scenario is not our normal op

Link Posted: 10/15/2013 5:50:57 PM EDT
[#41]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Slow, giant targets, who's max altitude is within range of MANPADS, and are big enough to track and hit with non-guided AA fire?  





Sounds like a fast way to lose a lot of cargo and pax.



 
Link Posted: 10/15/2013 8:08:25 PM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Slow, giant targets, who's max altitude is within range of MANPADS, and are big enough to track and hit with non-guided AA fire?  


Sounds like a fast way to lose a lot of cargo and pax.
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Slow, giant targets, who's max altitude is within range of MANPADS, and are big enough to track and hit with non-guided AA fire?  


Sounds like a fast way to lose a lot of cargo and pax.
 


As opposed to the current fleet of cargo planes during low altitude drops?
Link Posted: 10/16/2013 12:06:50 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


As opposed to the current fleet of cargo planes during low altitude drops?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Slow, giant targets, who's max altitude is within range of MANPADS, and are big enough to track and hit with non-guided AA fire?  


Sounds like a fast way to lose a lot of cargo and pax.
 


As opposed to the current fleet of cargo planes during low altitude drops?



When a C-130 goes to low altitude in a high threat environment it does a "combat drop", it pretty much nose dives at high speed and levels out until it reaches its target altitude so it doesn't spend as much time at low altitude.

It doesn't slowly meander through the kill zone.
Link Posted: 10/16/2013 1:01:17 AM EDT
[#44]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
As opposed to the current fleet of cargo planes during low altitude drops?


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:





Quoted:




Slow, giant targets, who's max altitude is within range of MANPADS, and are big enough to track and hit with non-guided AA fire?  
Sounds like a fast way to lose a lot of cargo and pax.


 






As opposed to the current fleet of cargo planes during low altitude drops?


ROFL.


Yes, EXACTLY.





As mentioned, the current fleet (based on threats) has the ability to maneuver better in both speed, agility, and altitude.





Also, having multiple aircraft ensures that all your eggs are not in one basket.





The biggest problem with the airship, is that it has a low ceiling, and SLOW max airspeed.





Apparently the vast majority of anti-aircraft fire misses.  Only directed fire (I.E. radar, optical, whatever) gunfire gets close to making hits.





That balloon has got to be a AA gunners wet dream.  
 
 
Link Posted: 10/16/2013 10:43:49 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

That balloon has got to be a AA gunners wet dream.  

   
View Quote


AA gunner hell, it looks like a mag of tracers would fuck the Von Zeppelin Express up royally....
Link Posted: 10/16/2013 4:56:17 PM EDT
[#46]
OK. hear me out.

The US Army is looking for a new light tank. The Brits built one in the 70's the very agile, fast, and packs a punch all while being air portable and UNDER 9 tons.



Pretty sure it could be upgraded more with American technology. Heck, it already has an American engine.

Problem solved.

Link Posted: 10/16/2013 5:21:51 PM EDT
[#47]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
AA gunner hell, it looks like a mag of tracers would fuck the Von Zeppelin Express up royally....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



Quoted:



That balloon has got to be a AA gunners wet dream.  



   




AA gunner hell, it looks like a mag of tracers would fuck the Von Zeppelin Express up royally....




 
Link Posted: 10/16/2013 10:20:56 PM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
OK. hear me out.

The US Army is looking for a new light tank. The Brits built one in the 70's the very agile, fast, and packs a punch all while being air portable and UNDER 9 tons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/FV107_CVR%28T%29_Scimitar.png

Pretty sure it could be upgraded more with American technology. Heck, it already has an American engine.

Problem solved.

View Quote


Scimitar?
Link Posted: 10/17/2013 8:43:47 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


AA gunner hell, it looks like a mag of tracers would fuck the Von Zeppelin Express up royally....
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

That balloon has got to be a AA gunners wet dream.  

   


AA gunner hell, it looks like a mag of tracers would fuck the Von Zeppelin Express up royally....


They use Helium, not hydrogen
Link Posted: 10/17/2013 8:56:27 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


They use Helium, not hydrogen
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

That balloon has got to be a AA gunners wet dream.  

   


AA gunner hell, it looks like a mag of tracers would fuck the Von Zeppelin Express up royally....


They use Helium, not hydrogen


Well shit... with the combined power of Arfcom, I think we've solved it... just build a small, heavily armed and armored tank, and fill it up with helium... that will make it light enough for the C-130, right?  
Page / 16
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top