HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
British Heritage
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Historical Events & Eras > Weapons of War

Notices and Announcements

Weapons of War The machinery of warfare. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 29 Mar 12, 16:11
Golani's Avatar
Golani Golani is offline
General of the Forums
Israel
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: Oded
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 8,460
Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn View Post
Personally, my worst was 15 in a M113, but since everyone just had fresh rations (after 2 weeks of ratpacks) the methane levels were...well, it was pretty ripe.
When it comes to comfort- I'd take the M113 any day, my ride was the Achzarit, where we enjoyed all the fruits of Soviet ergonomics...
Quote:
When the section is within the APC/IFV, thats moving in/through the battlefield, they also are completely useless and helpless. They are merely passengers waiting to embark at their drop off point. The only things that protect them during the trip are the mobility, protection and firepower of the vehicle.
I partially agree, while firepower can definitely provide cover in the lack of actual cover, it also drew attention and puts you higher on the priority list, assuming we're talking about a combined arms situation- the APCs/IFVs can (and should) remain one lag behind, in relative safety.
Quote:
So it really doesn't matter if my concept (an Infantry Battle Tank) starts a hypothetical mission where, in open terrain, engages enemy MBT's, then moves to, say, a built up area, the infantry section debusses and then the IBT works in close support with them. Your point about if such a vehicle were engaged and destroyed and the losses are, essentially doubled (both tank and section), well, we have that situation now anyway because existing IFV's have to journey through the same lethal battle area
Again, the IFV's and especially APC's aren't (or shouldn't) be a part of the initial assault and therefore aren't suppose to be able to negotiate the same threats an MBT faces. As far as higher armor and defense ability- like I've shown, it can be achieved in the APC-IFV level, without the requirement of going full MBT.
Quote:
and with the exception of your previously mentioned Namer and Achzarit (which are both pretty damn cool,by the way) none have MBT levels of armour.
Easily achievable, both system are nothing but a former MBT with slight modifications.
Quote:
Now two things- size and expense. What with current AFV sizes being they are, I cant see what an extra 2-3 ft wider or longer will do regarding increasing their presence on the battlefield. I mean, an Abrams isn't exactly a symbol of discretion (Is fairly quiet though).
I don't know all the considerations, but IIRC one of the U.S DOD requirements for MBT's are transportation by C-130 and the Abrams as is just barely fit the description.

Same goes for transport by trucks over here, logistically- I just can't see it happening.
Quote:
Note that when you guys went about designing the Namer, you didn't go down the IFV path (small turret-automatic cannon/ missile launcher), but instead going for the heavy APC with OWS heavy MG's. Sure, I get it, Merkavas take out enemy tanks and strongpoints, Namers provide protection and transport to infantry, and both give mutual support to infantry and each other depending on the tactical situation (FIBUA). But seeing the new crop of vehicles coming out (PUMA, new CV90 variants- as Johan Baner' highlighted), the division between the MBT and IFV will, over time, blur to the point where the arguments over difference and doctrine will boil down to mere semantics.
It was a conscience, albeit a little retarded decision that was made. There were plans of building the Namer with a 30mm cannon and essentially as an IFV, not sure why they were dropped but I'm guessing money issues, nonetheless the IDF has NO actual IFV's in service but does employ it's APC's in an IFV role (strictly Namer and Achzarit, we used to do the same with the 113s but then an RPG sliced through one in Gaza, providing 6 body bag worth of human remains on a 300 square meter area so we dropped it. Did I mention the word retarded yet?)
Quote:
On a separate note, has the IDF explored fitting an AMOS style weapon system to the Merkava? Would be pretty handy in built up areas against non-LOS targets.
Nope.
We have a somewhat similar- although quiet different system.
Want to guess it's platform?
__________________
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things"
60 years later and some 8,000 km SW of Chosin Reservoir that's the awful truth.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 29 Mar 12, 18:03
Eamonn's Avatar
Eamonn Eamonn is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 187
Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99] Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99]
Would you be referring to the 60mm mortar installed in the Merkava's turret? Otherwise, am completely in the dark.
Regarding the Namer's armament, check out the specs on the BMPT and BTR-T; 30mm cannons and ATGM's in profusion. Could be easily applied to the Namer, of course depending on getting finance from treasury.
Beg pardon, But I think you meant C17, not C130. However, your point about transport is valid. But, in following the concept of an IBT adopting the latest technological advances, naturally having a modular armour upgrade kit would be essential in meeting the desired specifications. (Understand the German PUMA has this up-armouring application built into it's design).
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 29 Mar 12, 18:32
Eamonn's Avatar
Eamonn Eamonn is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 187
Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99] Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCoyote View Post
Doctrine is part of it but there are other issues.



The money spent putting a heavy anti-system on the IFV becomes a sunk cost. If you later determine you did need a dedicated AT platform you may not have the money to acquire it in sufficient number or not at all.
Having this Infantry Battle Tank concept based on modular design would negate this.
I note that looking at the stats on the BTR-T, the Russians built with the vehicle 5-6 various weapon mounts with different mixes (auto cannon+ ATGM; HMG+ AGL; twin cannon etc.) to suit a prospective customer's requirements. I confess I thought it remiss that the US didn't do the same with their M60 MBT's, and build either a dedicated infantry support tank or heavy APC along the lines of the Achzarit, considering all the experience earned in Iraq. But then again, the Russians are renowned for getting as much bang for their buck when it comes to upgrading weaponry
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 30 Mar 12, 09:40
GCoyote's Avatar
GCoyote GCoyote is offline
ACG Forums - canis administrationem
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Distinguished Service Award Greatest Westerns Campaign Greatest Spy Movies Campaign 
Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: Gary C
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Laurel, MD, USA
Posts: 16,578
GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+] GCoyote has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn View Post
Having this Infantry Battle Tank concept based on modular design would negate this. ...
Not really. Once you actually make a decision and spend the money the same situation arises.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn View Post
... I note that looking at the stats on the BTR-T, the Russians built with the vehicle 5-6 various weapon mounts with different mixes (auto cannon+ ATGM; HMG+ AGL; twin cannon etc.) to suit a prospective customer's requirements. I confess I thought it remiss that the US didn't do the same with their M60 MBT's, and build either a dedicated infantry support tank or heavy APC along the lines of the Achzarit, considering all the experience earned in Iraq. But then again, the Russians are renowned for getting as much bang for their buck when it comes to upgrading weaponry
At the time the M60s were replaced by M1s, the heavy APC concept had not yet taken off. The M2/M3 was just coming online and I doubt there was any serious appetite for yet a third major infantry vehicle. I do find the heavy APC concept interesting and I can see a lot of potential applications, especially in today's increasingly urbanized combat environments. But the US faces the additional constraint of transportability and shipping two Bradleys or three Stykers for the same cost/capacity as one M60 based HAPC would make the later a very hard sell.

I've toyed with the BTRT in a few games several years ago but I really haven't seen them much in the export markets or major combat zones. Any idea how many have actually been sold world-wide?

Good thread by the way.
__________________
Any metaphor will tear if stretched over too much reality.

Questions about our site? See the FAQ.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 30 Mar 12, 09:55
Blackcloud6's Avatar
Blackcloud6 Blackcloud6 is offline
Captain
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Fred Schwarz
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Baltimore, MI
Posts: 751
Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Any idea how many have actually been sold world-wide?
None. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T

That none have been fielded to an operational force says much about its utility.
__________________
Blackcloud6

Refighting World War II - One hex at a time!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 30 Mar 12, 20:47
Eamonn's Avatar
Eamonn Eamonn is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 187
Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99] Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99]
Cheers GCoyote. As to Blackcloud6's doubts of its utility (BTR-T), I believe that the Russians intended it for export (with the plethora of client states using T54-55 tanks being its targeted market) and of course getting a new weapon system is always an expensive investment, which always takes some time. It is the BMPT (variant based on a T72 chassis) that I forsee being employed, when the Russians next time have a conflict in an urban environment. Also since the Russians have refused repeatedly to censure Syria (dont want to jeopardise future arms sales, would they?), it wouldn't surprise me to see either the BTR-T or BMPT being employed/evaluated in the current insurrection (civil war) in Syria.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 30 Mar 12, 23:03
Blackcloud6's Avatar
Blackcloud6 Blackcloud6 is offline
Captain
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Fred Schwarz
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Baltimore, MI
Posts: 751
Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99]
The BTR-T has been around since at least the late 1990s. There have been no orders for it. It has problems form being a converted tank. It carries only 5 infantrymen and the egress is difficult. It has a cramped space for them inside also. So what are you getting for your money? It may be cost effective in the long run to design the HAPC/HIFV from scratch and get a better vehicle.

The Namer is a better design, although based on the Merkava chassis, it is a new design and not a conversion of an existing tank hull.
__________________
Blackcloud6

Refighting World War II - One hex at a time!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 30 Mar 12, 23:43
Eamonn's Avatar
Eamonn Eamonn is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 187
Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99] Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackcloud6 View Post
The BTR-T has been around since at least the late 1990s. There have been no orders for it. It has problems form being a converted tank. It carries only 5 infantrymen and the egress is difficult. It has a cramped space for them inside also. So what are you getting for your money? It may be cost effective in the long run to design the HAPC/HIFV from scratch and get a better vehicle.

The Namer is a better design, although based on the Merkava chassis, it is a new design and not a conversion of an existing tank hull.
Fair point. Golani's own experiences confirms the problems with having MBT to APC conversions when you retain the engine at the rear (his experience with the Achzarit being a case in point).
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 31 Mar 12, 08:36
Blackcloud6's Avatar
Blackcloud6 Blackcloud6 is offline
Captain
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Real Name: Fred Schwarz
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New Baltimore, MI
Posts: 751
Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99] Blackcloud6 is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn View Post
Fair point. Golani's own experiences confirms the problems with having MBT to APC conversions when you retain the engine at the rear (his experience with the Achzarit being a case in point).
I understand using what you have for interim and immediate fixes but conversion bring many design compromises and unsolvable problems.

I think the BTR-T was more of a way to make money than provide a vehicle: "Hey, there are tons of T-55s out there. maybe we can make money by convincing people that we can convert them into fighting vehicles." But really, for most countries/entities still holding active T-55s, just being a T-55 will provide them with what they need, an armored vehicle to provide firepower to support their infantry. A related consideration to that is, and one that many don't even consider, is that the T-55 owners probably have stock piles of the ammunition for the 90mm gun and the Dhsk HMG. if they get BTR-Ts they then have to buy all new ammo and that may be very expensive.
__________________
Blackcloud6

Refighting World War II - One hex at a time!
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 31 Mar 12, 15:49
Golani's Avatar
Golani Golani is offline
General of the Forums
Israel
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: Oded
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 8,460
Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn View Post
Would you be referring to the 60mm mortar installed in the Merkava's turret?
No, the Keshset.

Its similar yet very different, it's not autonomous and it's not turret mounted and is impossible of direct fire. Come to think of it the only similarity is probably in accuracy.
Quote:
Regarding the Namer's armament, check out the specs on the BMPT and BTR-T; 30mm cannons and ATGM's in profusion. Could be easily applied to the Namer, of course depending on getting finance from treasury.
Yep, but I'm guesstimating it was dropped not only due to funds but also due to doctrine, which is outright stupid.
Quote:
Beg pardon, But I think you meant C17, not C130.
Indeed, sometimes I get too caught up with what we have.
Quote:
Golani's own experiences confirms the problems with having MBT to APC conversions when you retain the engine at the rear (his experience with the Achzarit being a case in point).
Yes, but this is completely absent in the Namer- which is modified from a Merkava and thus has the engine compartment up front, next to the driver.
It also has a water cooler and an A/C, pure heaven.
__________________
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things"
60 years later and some 8,000 km SW of Chosin Reservoir that's the awful truth.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #41  
Old 02 Apr 12, 08:07
Eamonn's Avatar
Eamonn Eamonn is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 187
Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99] Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golani View Post
No, the Keshset.


It also has a water cooler and an A/C, pure heaven.
Forgive me for going off topic with my own thread (which by the way, despite all the excellent points of view I still hold that the MBT and IFV will evolve into a single vehicle), but to Golani, I wonder how much the IDF spent on developing that water cooler? You see, here in Australia, the lads back from the 'Ghan requested water coolers for the Bushmaster vehicle. Pretty cheap and simple, yes? Yet 5 years and 6 million dollars later, the program was cancelled- and no coolers. I could go on- but I think I'll continue this line on ADF debates thread.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05 Apr 12, 08:31
Golani's Avatar
Golani Golani is offline
General of the Forums
Israel
5 Year Service Ribbon Greatest Spy Movies Campaign Greatest Blunders Campaign Best Pin-Up Of World War II 
 
Real Name: Oded
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 8,460
Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000] Golani has set a fine example for others to follow [1000]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eamonn View Post
Forgive me for going off topic with my own thread (which by the way, despite all the excellent points of view I still hold that the MBT and IFV will evolve into a single vehicle), but to Golani, I wonder how much the IDF spent on developing that water cooler? You see, here in Australia, the lads back from the 'Ghan requested water coolers for the Bushmaster vehicle. Pretty cheap and simple, yes? Yet 5 years and 6 million dollars later, the program was cancelled- and no coolers. I could go on- but I think I'll continue this line on ADF debates thread.
I honestly have no clue, when we first had our introduction to the vehicle we were sure they are pulling our legs on both counts (A/C and cooler) but we were wrong.

This is defiantly how war should be waged

OTOH, there's zero encouragement to actually dismount the vehicle...
__________________
"We've been looking for the enemy for some time now. We've finally found him. We're surrounded. That simplifies things"
60 years later and some 8,000 km SW of Chosin Reservoir that's the awful truth.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06 Apr 12, 10:28
Jefffar's Avatar
Jefffar Jefffar is offline
Second Lieutenant
Canada
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario
Posts: 453
Jefffar is on the path to success [1-99] Jefffar is on the path to success [1-99] Jefffar is on the path to success [1-99] Jefffar is on the path to success [1-99] Jefffar is on the path to success [1-99]
Those wacky Ukrainians have developed a variant of the T-72 tank that is intended for use as a heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. By changing the powerplant and making a few rearrangements inside they have manged to squeeze a 5 man troop capacity without removing the main armament.

BMT-72 Picture

Here is a T-84 version the BTMP-84
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06 Apr 12, 14:15
andrewza's Avatar
andrewza andrewza is online now
General
South_Africa
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: siommons town
Posts: 4,488
andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100] andrewza has demonstrated strength of character [100]
I do not see the need for a infantry battle tank. You let the tanks go in and do there thing and then send in the IFV. If the IFV encounters a random tank you use the AGM. Has soon has you put a heavy gun on your IFV you take up extra place that could have been used people, Ammo, fuel and supply's. And using a tank gun on a small group of infantry is a waist. A 20mm could do the same. And the rate of fire would be higher so you could actually do more damage to light targets in the same time period.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 16 Apr 12, 06:52
Eamonn's Avatar
Eamonn Eamonn is offline
Gunnery Sergeant
Australia
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 187
Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99] Eamonn is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jefffar View Post
Those wacky Ukrainians have developed a variant of the T-72 tank that is intended for use as a heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle. By changing the powerplant and making a few rearrangements inside they have manged to squeeze a 5 man troop capacity without removing the main armament.

BMT-72 Picture

Here is a T-84 version the BTMP-84
Great pictures Jefffar, they're exactly where I see AFV design development heading- though one can see the rather ad-hoc extension in the Russian prototype. Now if one can start one with a front-engined chassis (that's a to the CV90 and Merkava!)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.