SG terrain suitable for MBT?
-
Some M1A2s were disabled by AT-14 Kornets, and the latest AT-15 is reputedly more lethal. Even if not torn apart, Tanks have been historically weakest around the engine exhaust area and the tracks.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Sending tanks into a jungle is generally a bad idea, be you in a LT or not. In that area tanks serve more for fire support then actual armour assualt.
Not sure about Meky being the most heavily armoured tank in the word, given its spaced configuration means that it can survive and reduce damage from hits after being penetrated which other tanks might not. The Cat relies on a more conventional method of preventing penetration altogeher, so how it responds to ATGM will be a different ball game. I don't think it will be "easily" torn apart ala. T-72 though, unless you are talking the later generation ATGMs. -
OK Tempest's replacement is revealled....now lets wait for SM1's real replacement to be announced...
-
It may be that they are slanting to the swedish style...Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:There is a CV90 with a high pressure 120mm cannon actually. I was actually more under the impression that the SAF would try out that concept with the Bionix, i.e. fit a 120mm cannon like the one used in the CV90, or a L7 105mm cannon (there is an Israeli round that claims to have similar performance characteristics to the 120mm rounds).
But they seem to have decided it was high time to get a heavy hitter, obviously geared for urban warfare. It's likely they would upgrade it to 2A6 standard somewhat.
Or that its just that the LT is not yet ready to be unvieled... -
Oh, i have no delusions about that. What do you think happens to jungles and forests after bombardment? And the infantry in them?Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:If the enemy attacks in such a situation, you would not like to be in the middle of a "jungle clearing" exercise. In fact, Jungles are perfect hiding places for infantry, and just imagine them waiting to ambush and let loose a volley of many many anti-tank missiles. Some of the latest Russian anti-tank missiles can dent the Merkava and destroy/disable. Have no delusions about them tearing our Leopard 2s apart with ease.
Heard of creeping barrage? -
They would have to bombard a fairly large area... like a few kilometers radius since the operating range for these missiles is about a 3.5 kilometers.Originally posted by Shotgun:Oh, i have no delusions about that. What do you think happens to jungles and forests after bombardment? And the infantry in them?
Heard of creeping barrage?
Can they do that? I'm not sure how big a crater 155mm rounds leave. -
Well, some M1A2s were disabled by an RPG-7 shot to the rear, so that said, no tank in invulnerable. But I think tankies have already known that from the start.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Some M1A2s were disabled by AT-14 Kornets, and the latest AT-15 is reputedly more lethal. Even if not torn apart, Tanks have been historically weakest around the engine exhaust area and the tracks. -
It is impossible to build anything that cannot be knocked out or disabled.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Some M1A2s were disabled by AT-14 Kornets, and the latest AT-15 is reputedly more lethal. Even if not torn apart, Tanks have been historically weakest around the engine exhaust area and the tracks.
For example, the IDF's emphasis is on tank crew survivability.
60-70% of disabled MBTs were retrieved, repaired and returned to battle during the Yom Kippur War.
Around the same percentage of MBT crew survived the vehicle being hit. Though I can't remember if this figure reflects those who were able to go back to battle.
I can't remember the figure for crews of other vehicle types like M113 etc but I'm sure it is not as rosy. The un-upgraded M113 was felt to be a death trap by the IDF and most infantrymen chose to ride ON TOP of the vehicle - taking their chances with enemy small arms bullets - rather than INSIDE the vehicle. A RPG hit will usually kill everyone inside. -
Armour is not just about equipment (as much as it's good to have best stuff), your tatics count for tons as well. Give a clueless unit a good tank, and they'll mess it up in short order.
-
It sounds difficult when u just consider the numbers. However, its very difficult to see very far in forested areas. Very hard to find 3.5 km line of sight. Even if there was, its not hard to pre-empt an ATGM ambush in these "overwatched" areas and bombard the areas where they AT crews might be operating. In rolling European terrain or Deserts, its a harder, cos there is actually clear line of sight for very long distances. So its harder to anticipate where the ATGM teams might be hiding.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:They would have to bombard a fairly large area... like a few kilometers radius since the operating range for these missiles is about a 3.5 kilometers.
Can they do that? I'm not sure how big a crater 155mm rounds leave.
IMO, narrower terrain does have its advantages. -
Actually, I was just thinking about this problem and bombardment might pose problems if the bombardment is literally powerful enough to bring down a section of the forest because it makes it easier to gain a line of sight.Originally posted by Shotgun:It sounds difficult when u just consider the numbers. However, its very difficult to see very far in forested areas. Very hard to find 3.5 km line of sight. Even if there was, its not hard to pre-empt an ATGM ambush in these "overwatched" areas and bombard the areas where they AT crews might be operating. In rolling European terrain or Deserts, its a harder, cos there is actually clear line of sight for very long distances. So its harder to anticipate where the ATGM teams might be hiding.
IMO, narrower terrain does have its advantages.
BUt the problem with jungles as always is that it is easier to mount ambushes. It has its advantages of course, but small teams might have a chance to get close.
It's a theoretical question and I doubt it has been tested, and I don't recall the US deploying tanks in the jungles of Vietnam, especially in heavily forested areas. -
try cluster munitions.. like the ICM for the 155 artillery and P-138 for the 120mm mortar.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:They would have to bombard a fairly large area... like a few kilometers radius since the operating range for these missiles is about a 3.5 kilometers.
Can they do that? I'm not sure how big a crater 155mm rounds leave.
of course.. there is still the air force cluster bombs and FAEs...
but on the ground the best anti-infantry weapon in SAF would be the ABMS 40mm AGL mounted on the LSV and other armored vehicles like the BIONIX.
worst come to worst...the leopard II tank carries the shotgun ammo... literary turns enemy infantry into minced meat.
but ultimately.. the best defence against ATGM or any weapon is vigilance... -
The MBT cannot fight alone especially in close terrain. It needs infantry and screen of LTs and AIFVs to keep the AT infantry teams at bay.
-
Agreed
-
Oh yes they did deploy tanks in vietnam. M-48s, and shermans as well.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Actually, I was just thinking about this problem and bombardment might pose problems if the bombardment is literally powerful enough to bring down a section of the forest because it makes it easier to gain a line of sight.
BUt the problem with jungles as always is that it is easier to mount ambushes. It has its advantages of course, but small teams might have a chance to get close.
It's a theoretical question and I doubt it has been tested, and I don't recall the US deploying tanks in the jungles of Vietnam, especially in heavily forested areas.
Now, if the bombardment does level enough trees, and saturated enough, there wouldn't be many ATGM teams left behind would there? And the shock from the bombardment would probably incapacitate a large number of them.
One 155mm ICM has enough power to saturate an area the size of a football field. Its not impossible to open 3.5km gaps, or more... -
No tank can be completely immune from being disabled.
US and Australia used M48s and Centurions rather effectively in Vietnam.
Also, US and Israel have used MBTs in Iraq and Lebanon in urban terrain where RPGs were fired against them. The tanks mostly sttod up to these rounds without being knocked out. But I dont tghink any tank, at close or short ranges can be immune from being penetrated by multiple direct hits from the latest heavy anti tank HEAT rounds of man portable ATGWs.