Smoke Dischargers, And Fragmentation Grenades Fired From These

[Imp]

Simple terms what Fastboat Tough is saying is the weapon system is identical & can fire all ammo types designed for it.
Sweden however is the only country with documented proof that it uses the weaponized/ anti-personnel ammo.

This could be a simple choice based on the terrain they operate in or an imposed restriction.
Most countries think the decoys are a priority, Sweden has a lot of woods/forests so they may well feel close defence is more of a priority.

There are many weapons that follow this format if they have multiple ammo choices, the weapon system is capable of firing all its ammo types but for one reason or another that country does not use or have access to all of them. Tank main guns is an obvious one.

[Griefbringer]

I would presume that most modern tankers would prefer keeping some distance to enemy infantry, thus limiting need for such close defense systems. Also, if you are operating in close proximity to friendly infantry (eg. providing close support in urban environment) such systems could result in friendly casualties.

On the other hand, with prominent access to LAWs, RPGs etc. modern infantrymen have less interest in close assaulting vehicles than their WWII predecessors.

[dmnt]

Originally Posted by Griefbringer

I would presume that most modern tankers would prefer keeping some distance to enemy infantry, thus limiting need for such close defense systems. Also, if you are operating in close proximity to friendly infantry (eg. providing close support in urban environment) such systems could result in friendly casualties.

I believe that the reason why Sweden would employ such close proximity defenses is evident when you try and look a satellite picture over North Europe. It's not like Central Europe where you have patches of forest between the fields but the opposite. And the norther you go the worse it gets. That's also why Nordic countries aren't exactly tank heavy and (partly) why Soviet Union failed in their mission to reach Helsinki in 2 weeks in WW2. Map generator doesn't work that well for either, but you could of course imagine that the meeting engagement or anything is in such a spot because nobody wants to charge with tanks in the forest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Sweden
Arable land: 5.80%
Permanent crops: 0.02%
Water: 8.7%
Forest: ~55%

Finland:
Water: ~10%
Forest: ~69%

Aaaand (off-topic) this just in: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...tary-pact.html
No surprise to anyone who's been looking into what goodies are the Swedes buying and what Finns are. They seem to have the same helicoptres, MBTs, IFVs, APCs, SP-mortars etc etc.

[gila]

I really should let this go,
But i have to say,if you really rely on grenade launchers to get your MBT out a pickle,then you are serousily wrong.
MBT's should never be in that situation,they are best used as stand off,on a hill picking soft and hard targets, never on the front line Rambo style without infrantry close support.
Also to mention MBT's are very expensive,therefore losing one or two would make a big difference to your final score as well.
Combined arms warfare,patience and good judgement will get you better results,than rushing in as fools do.

[Suhiir]

The days of armored charges pretty much ended with the invention of the bazooka, panzerfaust, and RPG.

[shahadi]

Originally Posted by Suhiir

The days of armored charges pretty much ended with the invention of the bazooka, panzerfaust, and RPG.

Maybe. However, from reading USA articles there seems to be consensus of the need for heavy forces. Whether that force is based upon an ACR or the prominent HBCT of today, the ability to close with, exploit, and pursue enemy forces remain unchanged.

In most recent memory, the Battle of 73 Easting, is often cited to demonstrate the need for and capabilities of an armored striking force, i.e. tanks.

Although, I do not think USA planners want to face an adverse Bear, or the Hermit Kingdom without a heavy force I have been wrong too many times in my life to recount them all here.

[Suhiir]

Yeah, there are situations where armor dominates ... mostly desert warfare.
For the most part tho you need a infantry support because pure armor is dog meat in forest, marsh, mountain, jungle, or urban terrain.

[Imp]

Off topic here but didn't 73 Easting & in fact the whole war show the effectiveness of the Cavalry Formation (as in Bradley) in open terrain. Not tanks in particular
Got your eyes & close defence from the men on the ground & the right terrain for ATGMs.

Pretty sure Bradleys were responsible for a lot more kills than the Abrams in that war.

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by Imp

Off topic here but didn't 73 Easting & in fact the whole war show the effectiveness of the Cavalry Formation (as in Bradley) in open terrain. Not tanks in particular
Got your eyes & close defence from the men on the ground & the right terrain for ATGMs.

Pretty sure Bradleys were responsible for a lot more kills than the Abrams in that war.

The Bradley did quite well.
I recall reading an interview with one of the Bradley platoon commanders and a couple things of interest came up.
1) Since the Iraqi tanks had manual traverse turrets the Bradley's were able to duck and dodge.
2) Suppression by the 25mm was pretty effective, probably more then WinSPMBT allows since troop quality on the Iraqi side was pretty low (for the most part).
3) As you mentioned the terrain REALLY favored the TOW, AND the Iraqi's had no missile suppression equipment on their tanks, AND since many of the battles were in poor visibility the Iraqi's were unable to see the Bradleys to fire at them thus disrupting their aim.

As to the Bradleys getting more kills then the Abrams ... no idea.

[Airborne Rifles]

As far as the effectiveness of the Abrams with well-trained crews, look at the Battle of Medina Ridge and CPT (now COL, I think) H.R. McMaster.