The Tank is dead

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

It really comes down to - "Are they APCs or IFVs?"

If you try to make every vehicle an IFV of course you're going to have mass and firepower issues. The only time the USMC had an IFV was late WW II/Korea with the amphibious "tanks" made out of LVT3s and 4s, and even those didn't carry troops they only operated in close support of them.

With the current world situation of "low intensity" conflicts vs guerilla type forces IEDs have become the major casualty inflictor and thus the "need" for transports that are less vulnerable to them. But that of course means more mass and since it's now capable of withstanding mines and small arms it needs a weapon capable of taking out it's equal.

I totally agree a 40mm AGL or 25-30mm chaingun is more then adaquite to the task, I've never really seen the need for a 50/75/90mm weapon in the first place. Too small to deal with real tanks, larger then needed to deal with APC/IFVs.

The British Army has ended up with a lot of kit, in the form of light protected APC's purchased especially for Afghan, that it cannot yet afford to replace, although how useful they will be outside a COIN campaign is highly debatable.

The British Army also wants an 8X8 APC , after all every other army (US,Germany, France, Israel, etc) has them. The funny thing is I recall a time when nobody was all that impressed with the Russian BTR 60 series, that seems to have a very close resemblance to an 8x8 APC...

on the 90mm gun: 90mm SADF Elands (Based on a French Panhard) etc, did pretty well against, generally poorly handled, Angolan/Cuban T54/55-T62's 1970's-late 80's, although I am sure that would not be the case with more modern Russian tanks. Hence an ATGM under armour might be a good idea, especially if you cannot be certain of heaps of good anti tank helicopters overhead most of the time.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

By way of an update...Have been long tracking and posting on this from the start. Getting here sooner than some of you might realize in fact for the sake of argument 1 Oct. 2016 for the USA, for the CORPS they'll start getting theirs in 2018.
http://www.janes.com/article/63662/j...n-in-september

Others in my files...
http://www.armyrecognition.com/us_ar...ctures_te.html
http://asc.army.mil/web/tag/jtlv/
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...rotests-05147/
https://oshkoshdefense.com/jltv/?utm...FdcVgQodQecEKA
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...r-leaders.html

Also if you read the last ref. from military.com you'll have noticed how fast the weapons issue was addressed from the more recent JANE's ref. at the top. We're talking ref. dates here to be clear. Remember as well that the JTLV is only considered to be an interim vehicle for both services.

I hear you...Most others on the topic I believe I put into the MRAP Thread already over the years.

Regards,
Pat

[scorpio_rocks]

Isn't the answer to ATGM under armour for the UK already available with the export warrior / desert warrior with its TOWs?

Or is the thought that the Exactor (NLOS Spike) can provide the facility to the fast moving mobile troops?

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by scorpio_rocks

Isn't the answer to ATGM under armour for the UK already available with the export warrior / desert warrior with its TOWs?

Or is the thought that the Exactor (NLOS Spike) can provide the facility to the fast moving mobile troops?

Desert Warrior mounts a different turret with a 25mm gun. The British Army is upgrading to Warrior 2000 with a good 40mm gun, granted if it was affordable and could be fitted on Warrior 2000 Tow might well be the answer.

Extractor/NLOS Spike seems to be treated as a Royal Artillery asset in the British Army.

I remain rather dubious about 8x8 APC's for the British Army unless they use them to replace almost all the assorted short term, urgent buy, stuff that they purchased for Afghan, much of which is worn out and almost all of which is less than useful for anything else.

[shahadi]

I'm not sure, but as the military and political foot print on the ground in Syria and Iraq has dramatically changed, I do not see British infantry involved at all beyond a few special ops.

What I would like to see, if this Brexit move does not alter the fundamental relationship between the Brits and the Americans vis-a-vis NATO is that Britain takes on the leadership of the fundamental defense of Europe, then her new found strategic obligations will drive what she needs to field. 8x8's won't fare as well in Europe against Russian heavy mechanized brigades as say opposed to lightly armed Taliban fighters.

If she committed to NATO leadership, then I see, in my reading, she must field heavy mechanized combat teams too.

8x8's need a lot of supporting firepower to bring independent brigades to battle. Especially, if she transports two fire teams per vehicle there's not enough cubic feet to put added ammo loads to support auto canons and missiles.

Tanks, heavy tanks are needed.

One solution, since she does not have to air lift heavy mechanized formations (placing the brigades forward in Eastern Europe), is to adopt the Israeli solution, turning to hulls of ready to retire tanks for heavy IFV's conversions.

Now, that should make an interesting scenario.

=====

[Aeraaa]

Originally Posted by shahadi

8x8's won't fare as well in Europe against Russian heavy mechanized brigades as say opposed to lightly armed Taliban fighters.


=====

I agree. In a large conventional war, we won't witness the death of the tank, but the death of light armor (something that was evident in Ukraine as well). Stryker brigades and equivalent formations will have a hard time surviving on a battlefield like this.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by shahadi

I'm not sure, but as the military and political foot print on the ground in Syria and Iraq has dramatically changed, I do not see British infantry involved at all beyond a few special ops.

What I would like to see, if this Brexit move does not alter the fundamental relationship between the Brits and the Americans vis-a-vis NATO is that Britain takes on the leadership of the fundamental defense of Europe, then her new found strategic obligations will drive what she needs to field. 8x8's won't fare as well in Europe against Russian heavy mechanized brigades as say opposed to lightly armed Taliban fighters.

If she committed to NATO leadership, then I see, in my reading, she must field heavy mechanized combat teams too.

8x8's need a lot of supporting firepower to bring independent brigades to battle. Especially, if she transports two fire teams per vehicle there's not enough cubic feet to put added ammo loads to support auto canons and missiles.

Tanks, heavy tanks are needed.

One solution, since she does not have to air lift heavy mechanized formations (placing the brigades forward in Eastern Europe), is to adopt the Israeli solution, turning to hulls of ready to retire tanks for heavy IFV's conversions.

Now, that should make an interesting scenario.

=====

Like other Western nations UK has Special Forces operating in the Middle East, rather than infantry, as well as air forces.

UK plays a major role in NATO, although for my money I hope that does not involve confronting Russia in Eastern Europe, that can only lead to a hiding to nothing, certainly East and north of Poland.

Post Brexit, and with the new Carriers available from about 2019, I hope that UK returns to its traditional mainly maritime stance, on defence. The Royal Navy will become even more important for a nation that wants to be a global trader.

UK can live with a 70-80,000 man regular Army so long as the Royal Navy is strengthened and the Royal Marine Brigade kept at full strength. If I had my way, other than for occasional NATO exercises, none of the British Army would be actually based in mainland Europe, beyond the Crown bases on Cyprus and perhaps Gib.

To my way of thinking a UK that has a para/air portable brigade group, a Royal Marine brigade group, some sort of light armoured brigade group and an Armoured Division, plus Special Forces, has about as much military as it is likely to need.

I am much more concerned with a Royal Navy that has only 19 major surface escorts (needs to be at least 25) and seven nuc attack subs (needs to be at least 8 and preferably 10).

[IronDuke99]

Btw, I also think there is a strong case for UK expanding the excellent Gurkha Rifles to a full brigade.

[Suhiir]

Fortunately the USMC didn't go too crazy with acquiring MRAP type vehicles, and most of those they did acquire were probably turned over to the US Army ... they always like to collect special purpose toys.

I'm something of a fan of 8X8 APCs, their mobility is nearly as good at a tracked vehicle and they require a lot less maintenance on, and have a longer service life, with regard to their suspension system. They're also generally lighter, again due to wheels vs tracks.

[shahadi]

And what of the US Stryker AFV. It carries 9 troops, a crew of two, excellent maintenance records (better than the tracked Bradley).

Perfect speed and mobility for MOUT operations.

It comes in a variety of packages to complete a mission: an essential battle taxi, gun vehicle, ATGM, reconnaissance vehicles, mortar, engineer, and a C3 wagon.

No one vehicle does it all as the BMP and series.

And with the wire cage bolt on it take survive an single shaped RPG.

Plus it plays great in winspmbt.

The thing about MRAP, we make a modification and the enemy makes stronger IED's. The cycle continues.

Plus, these groups in Syria and Iraq change allegiance on a dime (or a quarter or a dollar). Point being, you give a group TOWs and next month a splinter group is using those ATGMs against us. The MRAP is short gapped.

=====