Fiddle's Green

[Panther Al]

Actually, was thinking some more on the idea of the US getting basing rights in Vietnam, and I think I hit on a reason that would make both parties (Us and Vietnam) very happy with the deal, and better yet, put China on notice that its best that they play by the rules.

The reason:

The Spratly's. In short, a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one. So far we have told everyone that we are backing the Philippines, and Vietnam and China has had navel battles over them: in 88 the ChiCom navy sank a Vietnamese Troop transport that was heading to a marked Vietnamese island. The Chinese has also recently occupied (with armed troops) an island claimed by the Philippines and have told them that under no circumstances will China permit anyone to explore for oil: particularly addressed to the Philippines.

If the US went to Vietnam, and said something along the lines of "We are worried about China and what it has in mind for the future. If you allow us to base our military in Cam Rhan Bay, say Naval facilities, a few fighter wings, and perhaps (For pure shits and giggles on my part) the 101st, we will back you on your claims in the Spratly's, and assist you in developing those islands." I would be willing to bet money the answer would be "Oh, hell yes."

[dragoon500ly]

Actually, was thinking some more on the idea of the US getting basing rights in Vietnam, and I think I hit on a reason that would make both parties (Us and Vietnam) very happy with the deal, and better yet, put China on notice that its best that they play by the rules.

The reason:

The Spratly's. In short, a group of some 100 islets, atolls, and reefs that total only about 5 square kilometers of land, but sprawl across some 410,000 square kilometers of the South China Sea. Set amid some of the world's most productive fishing grounds, the islands are believed to have enormous oil and gas reserves. Several nations have overlapping claims on the group. About 45 of the islands are currently occupied by small numbers of military personnel. China claims them all, but occupies only 8, Vietnam has occupied or marked 25, the Philippines 8, Malaysia 6, and Taiwan one. So far we have told everyone that we are backing the Philippines, and Vietnam and China has had navel battles over them: in 88 the ChiCom navy sank a Vietnamese Troop transport that was heading to a marked Vietnamese island. The Chinese has also recently occupied (with armed troops) an island claimed by the Philippines and have told them that under no circumstances will China permit anyone to explore for oil: particularly addressed to the Philippines.

If the US went to Vietnam, and said something along the lines of "We are worried about China and what it has in mind for the future. If you allow us to base our military in Cam Rhan Bay, say Naval facilities, a few fighter wings, and perhaps (For pure shits and giggles on my part) the 101st, we will back you on your claims in the Spratly's, and assist you in developing those islands." I would be willing to bet money the answer would be "Oh, hell yes."

Hmmm, that's a bet that I wouldn't take! On the other hand, the Spratley Islands issue may be the major stumbling block, especially when you consider that the PRC holds most of the US debt. Any permament move into the region, you can bet just about anything that the PRC will react, not only in a military sense, but by calling in that debt and doing everything possible to cause economic troubles.

[Panther Al]

Hmmm, that's a bet that I wouldn't take! On the other hand, the Spratley Islands issue may be the major stumbling block, especially when you consider that the PRC holds most of the US debt. Any permament move into the region, you can bet just about anything that the PRC will react, not only in a military sense, but by calling in that debt and doing everything possible to cause economic troubles.

In all fairness, I don't think that they will go quite *that* far, besides, we already have our in to the whole area in that we have already told everyone that we have the Philippines back when it comes to the Spratly's.

[dragoon500ly]

In all fairness, I don't think that they will go quite *that* far, besides, we already have our in to the whole area in that we have already told everyone that we have the Philippines back when it comes to the Spratly's.

That may be true, I guess it really comes down to is just what the PRC's long term goals are?

[Panther Al]

The reason I feel that they won't go quite that far boils down to less militaristic considerations than economic: yes, technically they could call the debt: but most if not all are basically treasury bonds with defined limits as to when and why they can be called ahead of the time span given to them. Also, they have to know that even should they call them that doing so would cause serious harm to the chinese economy as well. After all, if they called them it would devastate our economy: it would make 1929's crash look like a small hiccup not even worth mentioning. That in turn would destroy imports; most of which comes from china and since the vast majority of china's economy depends on exports to the US that would also destroy china's economic balance. Which isn't to say they might feel it's worth the risk, they do have that communist model that tells them it's not that big of a deal. It all depends on how connected to reality china's senior ministers are.

[Panther Al]

Had a passing thought while typing up the last post Dragoon: The lack of a proper avatar for you here: So, being the nice guy that I am (You in the back, shut it..;) ) I dug around my drive and found your patch. Though I also thought it would be lightly amusing to see others who have served stick the patches of the units they identify most with as well. (Not that its likely, but its amusing none the less)

[dragoon500ly]

Which isn't to say they might feel it's worth the risk, they do have that communist model that tells them it's not that big of a deal. It all depends on how connected to reality china's senior ministers are.

And that my friend is the $1,000,000 question!!!

[pmulcahy11b]

Had a passing thought while typing up the last post Dragoon: The lack of a proper avatar for you here: So, being the nice guy that I am (You in the back, shut it..;) ) I dug around my drive and found your patch. Though I also thought it would be lightly amusing to see others who have served stick the patches of the units they identify most with as well. (Not that its likely, but its amusing none the less)

I s[pent most of my time in the 82nd, but I like my dog firing a minigun better -- I love dogs and I never personally got to fire a minigun. I'd love to find a version of that picture with a black lab instead of german shepard.

[dragoon500ly]

Had a passing thought while typing up the last post Dragoon: The lack of a proper avatar for you here: So, being the nice guy that I am (You in the back, shut it..;) ) I dug around my drive and found your patch. Though I also thought it would be lightly amusing to see others who have served stick the patches of the units they identify most with as well. (Not that its likely, but its amusing none the less)

My thanks for the patch, now....just how do I apply it as an avatar?

[Panther Al]

Go and click on the User CP up on top of the screen and click on edit avatar. Should be a option to upload an Avatar, and there you go.

[Panther Al]

And that my friend is the $1,000,000 question!!!

In my personal opinion, based upon what I have read in places like Barrons, the WSJ, and other such periodicals, is they are attached to reality, and won't make the mutual suicide play. What they will do though is more along the lines of a little pain for them, a lot of pain for us. And - not trying to start a political discussion here - with our current efforts to destroy our own business environment in the name of "fairness", it would be a lot of pain. They would most likely redouble efforts to influence Africa and SE Asia, give NK and Iran much more assistance, and along the lines of a little pain for them, sink the value of the Yuan. That would make Chinese imports significantly cheaper, and make it very difficult for us to get our own manufacturing/business house in order. The could also - and with a perfectly straight face - spike the price of oil into low earth orbit by being willing to pay good money for Oil, which they do desperately need to support the expansion of the chinese economy, and subsidize the price of oil domestically. Again, a little pain for them, massive pain for us as long as we remain one of the most expensive countries in which to do business in. This is factual: take the top ten tax rates in the world, and US states take up 7 of them, including 4 of the top 5 - France, the usual suspect for having the highest, places lower than most of those seven, with Denmark placing first. Being that I am currently in the DC area on business, so I don't have the article handy that lists them, but it was posted on the WSJ website about a year or so ago for those that can search their opinion pages over the past couple of years.

[Panther Al]

Random observation of the day:

Is it just me, or is there something just plain wrong that a M1 tank can completely hide behind an AAVP7? :)

[dragoon500ly]

Random observation of the day:

Is it just me, or is there something just plain wrong that a M1 tank can completely hide behind an AAVP7? :)

ROFL! Never fails to surprise me just how big the AAVP7 really is.

Sorta of like a T-55 can hide behind an M-60A1...

[Panther Al]

Interesting factiod of the moment:

In Djibouti a new Air Force base was built in order to support multinational efforts against piracy. The owning nation is basing aircraft there to provide air support to the efforts, and has even based troops to provide security. The thing that makes it notable?

The fact that the flag flying over the base is white with a red meatball in the centre.

First time since the end of WW2 the Japanese military has been based outside the home islands.

[Panther Al]

Question for the fellow gunnuts of the forum: Have a PS90, love it. Great little round in the 5.7, handy as all get out, nothing really to say bad about it.


Now, It is range limited. And according to some, its hitting power is questionable, though RL experience tends to say otherwise. But in you all's opinion, is it still a decently capable firearm/chambering for what would be typical non-desert combat environments (Urban Area's, typical rural mix of forest and field and such like)? In my personal opinion, the PS90's longer barrel makes the concept at least thinkable, but.. you know what they say about opinions.

[dragoon500ly]

Not having fired a PS90, really can't put my two cents in, so here's my penny version (LOL)!

In talking with family members who have returned from deployments to Disneyland in the Middle East, one of the things that they all have commited on has been the less than stellar performance of the 5.56mm round insofar as the one shot-one kill role. My brother tells of one of his soldiers putting over 20 rounds into one insurgent and still getting hit by return fire. Examination of the body showed that all 20 rounds were right into the chest. And that's not the only instance that I've heard of 5.56mm not knocking its victim down and out.

I've heard of soldiers getting their hands on .45s because the issue 9mms have the same problem, too mag a mag capacity and not enough knock down power.

In the reviews I've read on the PS90, opinion is mixed, as a PDW it is certainly far better than a pistol. But the great debate is just how effective the 5.7mm round is. And based on what I'm hiring from returning soldiers, who are asking for a larger caliber......

[dragoon500ly]

AND on another subject....

The United States Navy and the People's Republic of Vietnam Navy are holding a series of map exercises and joint discussions in their first naval exercise.

No warships or aircraft have taken part yet, but initial reports are that the exercise has gone very well.

And yes, the reason why Vietnam took part in the exercise is due to increasing concerns over the PRC build-up of its military forces.

[dragoon500ly]

Came across this one in the Army Times...

A People's Republic of Vietnam Colonel will be attending the US Army's Command & General Staff School.

MY how times change!

[Panther Al]

Came across this one in the Army Times...

A People's Republic of Vietnam Colonel will be attending the US Army's Command & General Staff School.

MY how times change!

For some reason that doesn't surprise me in the least. I've getting a serious vibe from things that I have read and seen that there is a quiet slow meeting of the minds between Vietnam and the US. Nothing solid to point at, but the vibe is there and I think with China's behavior lately this is a *very* good thing.

[pmulcahy11b]

We definitely can learn things from the Vietnamese that will be useful in Afghanistan. I think there should be joint land exercises.

[dragoon500ly]

I have to say, the way the PRC is building up its military capability has got a lot of the PacRim countries nervous (or should I say scared s***less?).

Digging through the unclassified stuff, they are certainly going to be the regional power, their capability for short-range lift is certain impressive. And all of the squids who have worked with the PRC on the anti-piracy patrol have come away impressed and more than a little concerned. Impressed due to the every increasing level of training and capability that their navy shows. Concerned because the PRC navy is showing an increasing blue-water capability.

Wonder what will happen in 10-20 years?

[dragoon500ly]

In WWII, the US fielded two cavalry divisions, one went on to earn great fame, and the other went into the dust bin of history.

The US Cavalry Division was an odd duck. Its 1942 TO&E had 588 officers, 48 warrant officers and 11,476 enlisted men. It included 8,323 cavalry mounts, 533 pack and draft horses and 265 mules as well as 18 light tanks, 64 armored cars, 611 trucks and 140 motorcycles. Needless to say, when the cavalry went to war, the horses and mules remained stateside.

The First Cavalry Division was a pre-war Regular Army unit stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas. It consisted of some of the most famous cavalry regiments in the Army. The 1st Cavalry Brigade was made up of the 5th and 12th Cavalry Regiments and the 2nd Cavalry Brigade consisted of the 7th and 8th Cavalry Regiments.

Campaign honors for the 1st Cavalry Division in World War II included New Guinea; Bismarck Archipelago; Leyte and Luzon.

Its initial combat actions consisted of mopping up IJA stragglers in the Oro Bay region of New Guinea (4 Jan 44). Its first real test was in MacArthur's "Reconnaissance in Force" of Los Negros Island (28 Feb 44) and Manus Island. In spite of stiff resistance, the dismounted troopers secured the two islands, as well as other islands in the Bismarck Archipelago by 18 May 44.

Their next action was the 20 Oct 44 assault on Leyte Island, the 1st Cav took part in the drive that split the island in half and on 30 Dec 44, was withdrawn to prepare for the invasion of Luzon.

The division landed in Lingayen Gulf on 27 Jan 45 and took part in the drive on Manila. After the liberation of the city, the 1st Cav took part in clearing operations until 12 Mar 45 when it was withdrawn for rehabilitation and training for its next operation, the invasion of Japan.

During its service, the 1st Cavalry Division lost 734 troopers killed in action, 3,311 wounded and 236 troopers who died of their wounds.

There were two 2nd Cavalry Divisions that served in World War II. The first remained stateside and was deactivated 15 Jul 42. In its place, the 2nd Cavalry Division (Colored) was activated on 25 Feb 43, like the 1st Cavalry Division, the 2nd had two brigades, the 4th Cavalry Brigade, consisting of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments (Colored) and the 5th Cavalry Brigade, consisting of the 27th and 28th Cavalry Regiments (Colored).

The 2nd Cavalry Division (Colored) was sent to North Africa and arrived on 9 Mar 44, where it was inactivated and its troopers used to create service and engineer units. The 2nd Cavalry Division was awarded the European Theater Campaign ribbon, without inscription.

The US Army in the Second World War was a segregated service. Colored units were composed of Afro-American enlisted men, commanded by Anglo-American officers. This policy was maintained because it was felt that Colored units were not as capable of White units in military service. Any examination of the records of the pre-war 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments (Colored) confirm that the "Buffalo Soldiers" were the equal of any of the Anglo Cavalry Regiments. It is such a pity that fighting regiments that had taken on the Apaches in the deserts of Arizona/New Mexico and had taken part in the Battles of Kettle Hill and San Juan Hill were denied their chance at "Making Hitler Dance!"

drawn from "WWII Order of Battle by Shelby Stanton".

[Panther Al]

Walking back to the subject of the Stryker, does anyone know if this is still a correct organizational pic for a Stryker Company, and if so, does anyone have similar pics to this one for other components for current US Army orgs?

[bobcat]

doctrinally you FIST section is light. real world should be about 3 FO's and an acting FSNCO and maybe a rookie or two.

[Panther Al]

Well. Things can always surprise you at arms shows, and this year nothin changes. BAE is showing off it's latest CV90- or not, depending on how you are looking at it. When you look at it with thermals you don't see an CV90- you see what ever the TC wants you to se, be it a polar bear or a trash can.

Yep- stealth has arrived. Covered with ceramic tiles costing a out a hundred bucks apiece, ran with cooling and heating elements, hooked up to a comouter and thermal camera's, it can alter it's tempature, even whilst moving to match anything in it's files or scanned with it's ball shaped sensor. Granted, it's at it's best at 500m out, and as the tiles get damaged, the effectiveness drops, this can be a huge advantage for the vehicle it's built into.

Freaking awesome. Got to hand it to those swedes. First the CV90, then Minecraft, and now this.

[Targan]

Well. Things can always surprise you at arms shows, and this year nothin changes. BAE is showing off it's latest CV90- or not, depending on how you are looking at it. When you look at it with thermals you don't see an CV90- you see what ever the TC wants you to se, be it a polar bear or a trash can.

Yep- stealth has arrived. Covered with ceramic tiles costing a out a hundred bucks apiece, ran with cooling and heating elements, hooked up to a comouter and thermal camera's, it can alter it's tempature, even whilst moving to match anything in it's files or scanned with it's ball shaped sensor. Granted, it's at it's best at 500m out, and as the tiles get damaged, the effectiveness drops, this can be a huge advantage for the vehicle it's built into.

Last week MajorPo sent me a link to a video showing this technology in action:

http://gizmodo.com/5837511/video-demonstrates-wickedly-cool-night-invisibility-technology

[ArmySGT.]

Walking back to the subject of the Stryker, does anyone know if this is still a correct organizational pic for a Stryker Company, and if so, does anyone have similar pics to this one for other components for current US Army orgs?


Man it would suck to be lower enlisted in the MGS platoon.

Three lowers, 5 NCOs, and a Looie. Guess who is doing all the shit.

[Panther Al]

*laughs*

Yeah, didn't think of that, but you are right. Got the image from the Army, I believe thats what they are setting up Stryker companies as.

[dragoon500ly]

To quote a certain airborne general on June 5, 1944..."Never have so few been led by so many!"

[Panther Al]

The idea that the Stryker is better-suited for one type of operation than another goes to the heart of one of the US Army’s biggest problems: we try to do a one-size-fits-all force instead of dividing the force into specialty units that can be retrained for other missions in a pinch. I’ve pitched the idea of greater specialization before, but I’ll keep doing it for the practice.

There need to be several US Army variants. There needs to be an Old Guard that looks great in parades and worries about whether the general is getting enough fiber. This job has been filled the US Army. There needs to be an Army that kills folks and breaks things and does nothing else. Killing folks and breaking things are skills. As the destructive potential of conventional weapons continues to rise, the need for skilled and motivated small unit leaders grows ever greater. Moreover, the men who volunteer for the combat arms signed up to kill folks and break things. Using them for other things like peacekeeping is downright wasteful of their motivation and the time they need to continue to grow their ability to kill folks and break things efficiently and effectively. The initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 demonstrates that a small effective force can move the required distance and get the conventional job done. When we’re talking about fuel hogs like the M1 Abrams, numbers don’t always equal security or rapid mission accomplishment. High quality tankers, artillery crews, combat engineers, and light infantry need a lot of practice executing a relative handful of battle drills.

Then there needs to be an Army that does the bulk of the peacekeeping. These guys do things like man the checkpoints and generally police the place after the steely-eyed killers have done their bit. The peacekeepers have at least as much in common with police as they do with the throat slashers. The peacekeepers need a whole different set of skills than the war fighters. More importantly, the peacekeepers need a whole different mindset and set of expectations of their role than the war fighters. Tank crews and light infantry sign on to be in combat. Peacekeepers sign on to keep the peace. There is some common ground, but the common ground is less than the ground that is not in common.

The majority of the peacekeepers should be reservists. Reservists tend to be older than their Regular Army counterparts. My experience in Iraq indicates that older men are less eager to press the trigger. Older men are married and have children at higher rates. Perhaps those of us with wives and children have an easier time imagining what happens when undisciplined fire goes through the walls of residential areas. In any event, older reservists (who generally are less physically fit for the demands of combat) have more of the mindset needed for peacekeeping. Perhaps most importantly, peacekeeping is more forgiving than combat.

This isn't a bad point: And you might very well be on to something here.

The problems are based in what do we need an army for?

Do we need an Army that is built around breaking your heart and army? Or to get involved in 'nation building'? Expecting the Army to do both is a stretch, but not undoable: We just need to decide which sorts of units we need for each role, and then let them do that role without being pimped out to do things they are not suited for.

Now, lets take the Stryker (Please!): In a peace keeping role, I can actually agree its not a bad thing in the least. Expensive for the job, but its actually probably pretty good at it. Enough armour and firepower to deal with irregular forces that lack any heavy weaponry or training. Perhaps a little too fancy for the role, but it is a lot better than Brads and Abrams. But in a Force on Force mission - the traditional Break Hearts and Armies - the Stryker is by and large a total failure in my mind. In this realm there is two roles, and two roles only for the Stryker Brigade.

The first role is that of a Rapid Reaction Force. AKA "The Designated Speed Bump". In a fictional point of view, lets look at it like this:

The 27th Corp is assigned to defend West Krasnovia from the evil hordes of East Krasnovia: Its ruling Amway party decides that its time to invade the west, and bring forth the joys of pyramid marketing to the corrupt and lazy westerners. Now, the 27th Corp is scattered all over, tasked to cover a multitude of area's with their heavy forces, and the EKA (East Krasnovian Army) gets clever, and attacks through a supposedly impassable forest (Like we haven't seen that a time or three). Now, it would take days to get heavy forces to move to block them, time the Corp doesn't have. But the Corps Stryker Brigade, being light and wheeled, can scream down the highways at speeds tracked vehicles can't match. Of course, once it gets there it is going to be outgunned and outnumbered, but thats OK: The mission they have is to buy time for heavy followup forces to get in place.

The second is as a Cadre force: Equipping National Guard units with heavy mechanized equipment is expensive. Only thing more expensive than that, is training with the same. So, lets say, looking above at a Peacekeeper side of the army and a force on force side, you have a Active Duty Army: Designed around Force on Force, it is made of a small number of Active Divisions built, and trained for, Force on Force. This is all it does. Now, lets give this new model army a total of 3 Corps: One for Europe/ME, One Continental, and One Pacific. 1st and 3rd Corp, the oversea's Corps, are nothing but Heavy. 3 Heavy Divisions, a Heavy Cav Regiment, and a Corp Stryker Brigade. 2nd Corp in the States, now that is a Peace Keeping Corp. 2 Divisions of "Stryker" style units, and a single Heavy Force on Force division to serve as Cadre for more should the need arise and as support for 1st and 3rd Corps. The Guard goes all stryker. Now this serves two purposes. One, is that as Guard, they are, as Web said, less likely to do something stupid when used in the Peacekeeper role, and with that being its primary mission, will be given Strykers to suit that mission. But, it also tabbed that should the need arise, they can be called up to fill up new Force on Force units. For this, they will draw upon stocks of heavy equipment set aside for this, and since they have trained with the (relatively) cheaper Strykers, it wouldn't be very hard for them to get used to heavier equipment.

Best of both worlds you could say.

[bobcat]

honestly in a break hearts and armies fight anyone suicidal enough to ride helicopters is doomed long before the strykers. why you ask, for the same reasons the strykers are doomed magnified by the fact the death fans lack the firepower to even get a surprise kill in before its shot down(and the fact its hard to sneak up on anything with that distinctive whop-whop-whop) but these are tools. tolls meant for specific tasks helicopters move men and material swiftly between secured locations, strykers fight the unconventional war, and tanks do the frontal attack stuff.

[Panther Al]

Thats not the same at all Bobcat:

What you are forgetting to take into account is how the two are meant to be used according to doctrine.

Strykers - For Better of For Worse, is getting placed in the same realm as Mech Inf. Yes, about everyone knows A Stryker isn't up the same threat levels that a Brad is, but the Stryker is (sorta)Armoured, so it will get used to project Force on Force despite what everyone knows. Thats just the way things are, and why going heavy on Stryker Brigades in the amounts like we are is a mistake in my opinion.

Helo's are anything but. Airmobile is a term that needs to be payed attention to: Helo's are the penultimate battle taxi. No one, even the most die hard rabid Airmobile fan, ever will allow an Air Assault unit to fly into the face of built up mechanized forces. Just Won't Happen. Because, on this, you are right: Troop Carrying Helo's flying into the FEBA are called Skeet for a reason. Helo units fly to the immediate rear of the area where the troops are needed, and then dismount them so they can advance to the FEBA on foot. Else, they are used to bypass organized forces and deposited in a rear area - again, where there are few if any forces that can play duck hunter.

Attack Helo's also don't play in your face force on force: They scoot, peek, and then shoot. The Hide. They Duck. They stay out of sigh and out of mind until its time to take the ambush shot. Again, not at all what a Stryker does.

Agian, No One will ever even think of pushing a company, battalion, or even brigade of the 101st into a fight the same way they would Brads, or even Strykers. Apples and Oranges.

[bobcat]

strykers have a big survival advantage over their peers in one aspect however. they can hide, helo's can't and armor isn't terribly good at it. as far as troop movers go the stryker is fast, agile, and can hide. cavalry forces have always fought dismounted for a reason. and that reason was to keep their means of getting around, around.

[Legbreaker]

APCs in general, are nothing more than battle taxis - move in, drop off the infantry, then get the hell out of the way.
The weapons are really just there to support the infantry, preferably from hull down positions out of man portable AT range. Firing ports when they exist are there for emergency short range defensive fire - they're not an offensive feature no matter how much one may wish otherwise. Infantry fighting while still mounted is a recipe in my opinion for disaster. The strength of infantry lies in their ability to disburse and use the terrain for cover and not be all taken out in one rocket strike.

Yes, there are times staying mounted is preferable, such as rapid movement across the battlefield, or to close on an enemy strongpoint (provided there's no AT capability there), but all in all, they should be viewed as little more than transportation combined with mobile and direct fire support.

Note that there are some exceptions to the rule, but not all that many of them...

Remember even MBTs don't expose themselves unless absolutely necessary, and their armour is MUCH thicker than an APC or IFV.

[Panther Al]

Couple of things:


One, again, it comes down to Doctrine. Doctrine dictates all things.

Second, Cavalry hasn't always fought dismounted: In fact, until the advent of repeating firearms, it was death to dismount - at which point, until the advent of Armoured vehicles, Cavalry turned into nothing more than mounted infantry for is was death to stay mounted in the face of the sorts of firepower modern weapons (modern as in late 1800's) could put out.

Third: NO one is doing any traditional Cavalry Missions overseas anymore higher than at the Brigade level. In fact, most brigade scout platoons are being used more along the lines of an ad-hoc kinda-sorta wanna-be spec-ops type of role.

Fourth: I never said the Stryker was totally useless: Well.. maybe the *stryker* itself, but the concept behind the Stryker makes a lot of good solid sense. The Stryker has far to many bells and whistles for what it does. Now, as a family of vehicles, filling a multitude of roles with the same chassis? Pure Gold. If the vehicle itself was better, I would be all for it. I was all for the Stryker Program back before they settled on the Stryker itself: I think for less money we would have a better vehicle if we based it off of the ASLAV or NZLAV. Both of those focus more on mission than on fancy electronics - and are based on the same family of vehicles that the Stryker, Bison, Grizzly, Cougar, and LAV-25 come from, so we know they are mechanically sound. And originally while in the testing phase we used the Italian Centaro Armoured Cars, and those performed fantastically - and again, was cheaper.

Back on Doctrine, and Dragoon500ly check me on this, the Cavalry Mission depends on where the unit falls.

If it is a brigade scout platoon, its less cav than it is pure localized recce - whats over the hill in front of us, around the corner, and maybe the next town. DivCav squadrons - the lowest level of unit to be designated Cavalry - is focused on what will effect the division itself: Whats in the next town, how is the route to it, and the counter-recce mission. The only time it is supposed to get in a knock out drag out fight is in the counter recce role, as well as being able to make short work out of anything it stumbles into - but not to go out and look for trouble. Where as the scout platoon would be best mounted in light vehicles like the humvee, DivCav would be well suited to riding into battle in Light Armoured Vehicles. Enough armour to handle small arms fire, fast and light to take full advantage of the road network, and able to run off road almost as good as a tracked vehicle with enough firepower (In the MPGS) to deal with any small units it bumps into. And they wouldn't dismount except to form OP's: Most if not all of the recce they would do would be done mounted, for DivCav operates forward of the main line of battle, and they need the mobility to do the job. Corp level cav is in the form of the ACR. These have to be heavy: These form the same role German Gepanzart Aufklarungsschwadrons had in the second world war. One is to provide a corp level recon element, that had the strength and firepower to fight its way through (And by this, it is understood that its more a case to allow them to slip through, not destroy units holding the line) the enemies front line, and to operate in the backfield performing a level of recon that straddles the border between strategic and tactical levels, and then return to friendly lines. The second, is as a form of corp level fire brigade - a compact reserve force that can be committed as a hip pocket formation that is fully contained within itself, and doesn't need corp level assets to perform whatever mission is assigned to it. In this mission, the Stryker - or any similar vehicle for that matter - doesn't have the firepower or protection to pull it off. Which is why converting the ACR's from its heavy formation of Abram's and Bradley's is a huge mistake in my opinion.


As to armour isn't good at hiding, goes to show you haven't dealt with sneaky SOB tankers. The M1 is very good at sneaking and peaking. Better than the Bradley oddly enough - the Abrams is very quiet, lower, and has much better optics. While, and I said this earlier, the Stryker has a huge advantage, even over the very quiet Abrams, in the noise it generates - to a point, you still have that noisy diesel. I've personally snuck up to the back of a Brad in an Abrams, close enough to where the first they saw me was when my tube snagged the tarp hanging off of the back of it. I could have nudged the troop door closed, but I didn't trust my driver that much that close to another vehicle. I have *never* seen a CVC thrown so hard, so far, in my life. :)

[Panther Al]

APCs in general, are nothing more than battle taxis - move in, drop off the infantry, then get the hell out of the way.
The weapons are really just there to support the infantry, preferably from hull down positions out of man portable AT range. Firing ports when they exist are there for emergency short range defensive fire - they're not an offensive feature no matter how much one my wish otherwise. Infantry fighting while still mounted is a recipe in my opinion for disaster. The strength of infantry lies in their ability to disburse and use the terrain for cover and not be all taken out in one rocket strike.

Yes, there are times staying mounted is preferable, such as rapid movement across the battlefield, or to close on an enemy strongpoint (provided there's no AT capability there), but all in all, they should be viewed as little more than transportation combined with mobile and direct fire support.

Note that there are some exceptions to the rule, but not all that many of them...

Remember even MBTs don't expose themselves unless absolutely necessary, and their armour is MUCH thicker than an APC or IFV.


Agreed: The IFV in my mind is a evolutionary dead end: Enough Firepower that it requires that the oppo's pay attention to it, and not enough armour to survive that attention. This is one thing that I love about the latest Israeli Merk Based H-APC. Its more mobile than the tanks they support, and armoured as well, if not better than, the tank in which it is based on. Which allows, for the first time, for a infantry unit to survive a mounted attack on a prepared position or small town. Tanks in a support by fire role, from a nicely hull down point to either side of the axis of attack, and the H-APC's running right for the point of attack. No matter how much suppressive fire you bring down, there is always going to be ATGW's that will survive, and they will always pop the IFV's when they attack - so the infantry would have to go in on foot, and soak up the causalities, where as the Namer will be able (and has in fact done so) soak up what fire is brought to bear till it reaches the debus point, allowing intact infantry formations to be brought to bear on the exact points needed.

[dragoon500ly]

Couple of things:


If it is a brigade scout platoon, its less cav than it is pure localized recce - whats over the hill in front of us, around the corner, and maybe the next town. DivCav squadrons - the lowest level of unit to be designated Cavalry - is focused on what will effect the division itself: Whats in the next town, how is the route to it, and the counter-recce mission. The only time it is supposed to get in a knock out drag out fight is in the counter recce role, as well as being able to make short work out of anything it stumbles into - but not to go out and look for trouble. Where as the scout platoon would be best mounted in light vehicles like the humvee, DivCav would be well suited to riding into battle in Light Armoured Vehicles. Enough armour to handle small arms fire, fast and light to take full advantage of the road network, and able to run off road almost as good as a tracked vehicle with enough firepower (In the MPGS) to deal with any small units it bumps into. And they wouldn't dismount except to form OP's: Most if not all of the recce they would do would be done mounted, for DivCav operates forward of the main line of battle, and they need the mobility to do the job.

It was always recognized that the DivCav Sqn was incapable of screening the division's entire front and flanks. Its mix of two ground and two air cav troops are an almost classic case of "too little, too late". According to the various manuals, the division's recon role had to be closely coordinated with the battalion's scout platoons in order to provide the most basic coverage. During the 1980s/90s, there was a lot of talk of boosting the DivCav Sqn up to three ground and three air troops or adding a full ground cav squadron and a full air cav squadron to the division.

It was also recognized that a pure M-3 troop simply didn't have the firepower to take on a Soviet Regt Recon Company. The Soviets had started adding a tank platoon to reinforce the usual BRDM/BMP mix. This is when the Army started experimenting with adding a Abrams platoon. Desert Storm saw several different mixes of DivCav. You had M-1/M-3, straight M-3, and even HMMWV/TOW, HMMWV/AGL and HMMWV/HMG. Of these, the M-1/M-3 worked the best.

Corp level cav is in the form of the ACR. These have to be heavy: These form the same role German Gepanzart Aufklarungsschwadrons had in the second world war. One is to provide a corp level recon element, that had the strength and firepower to fight its way through (And by this, it is understood that its more a case to allow them to slip through, not destroy units holding the line) the enemies front line, and to operate in the backfield performing a level of recon that straddles the border between strategic and tactical levels, and then return to friendly lines. The second, is as a form of corp level fire brigade - a compact reserve force that can be committed as a hip pocket formation that is fully contained within itself, and doesn't need corp level assets to perform whatever mission is assigned to it. In this mission, the Stryker - or any similar vehicle for that matter - doesn't have the firepower or protection to pull it off. Which is why converting the ACR's from its heavy formation of Abram's and Bradley's is a huge mistake in my opinion.


As to armour isn't good at hiding, goes to show you haven't dealt with sneaky SOB tankers. The M1 is very good at sneaking and peaking. Better than the Bradley oddly enough - the Abrams is very quiet, lower, and has much better optics. While, and I said this earlier, the Stryker has a huge advantage, even over the very quiet Abrams, in the noise it generates - to a point, you still have that noisy diesel. I've personally snuck up to the back of a Brad in an Abrams, close enough to where the first they saw me was when my tube snagged the tarp hanging off of the back of it. I could have nudged the troop door closed, but I didn't trust my driver that much that close to another vehicle. I have *never* seen a CVC thrown so hard, so far, in my life. :)

The M-1 is one of the most quiet tanks in service, the turbine can rarely be heard much beyond 100 meters. On numerous field exercises, M-1s could get closer to red force units than Bradleys or even M-113s. When the Abrams first reached Germany, it earned the nickname "Whispering Death"...bestowed by the Canadians who were surprised at every turn by the speed, agility and near silence of the Abrams.

Stryker may have a use in a Peacekeeper role, but when the Army makes the decision to gut the Armor Force in favor of large numbers of a glorified RV....its only a matter of time before troops will pay the price.

[Panther Al]

I knew they was talking about adding to the divcav, but never twigged onto the exact reasons. Still and all, the doctrine was there, the ability wasn't is pretty much about sums it up?



And as to the last bit, thats the biggest gripe I have: It seems that once again, the army has forgot rule one of armoured warfare: It takes a tank to kill a tank. Missiles are good, but they are not perfect. Towed Guns was awesome, but they couldn't maneuver, and when mounted on a light chassis (MPGS anyone?) couldn't hang when real tanks showed up: A real tank can survive a near miss, or a glancing hit; A Stryker (Or Centaro, Rookiat, whatever) can't.

While everyone swore by Tank Destroyers (US because we believed in the Doctrine, Russians and Germans because they had to mount as many big guns as they could)in the second world war, if you would note, that once the lessons was learned, there was no more: It was accepted - finally - that tanks and only tanks could kill other tanks on a reliable basis.

[Legbreaker]

What about track noise?
I'm yet to find a single tracked vehicle that doesn't clank and squeal every time it moves an inch. Might be able to sneak up on other vehicles with engines running, but on infantry I just can't see it....

[Panther Al]

Oh, thats there alright: Track Noise is what usually gives it away in the end. Depends on what is going on around you when we are sneaking up. In the case I mentioned, while the brad I snuck up on wasn't running, both the gunner and BC was listening to what was being sent out on the radio - and I doubt what noise they heard registered as a tank trying to sneak up on them - after all, what you expect to hear shapes a lot of what you do hear. Other times, the sound of a running humvee would mask the noise up till about a 100 feet or so. Of course, a quiet day or night, you would hear us about a 100 yards out, but still and all.

[Legbreaker]

So in other words, the Bradley crew were not paying attention and had headphones interfereing with their ability to hear?
Sort of drives home the need for an infantry screen doesn't it.

[Panther Al]

Oh absolutely. Also helps to pay attention to your dismount who is waving and yelling that something was behind them. :)


Smart Dismounts, ones who know the job they are there for, and willing to it is much rarer than one might wish.

You might have one, or the other, but rarely do you get both. :)

[dragoon500ly]

I knew they was talking about adding to the divcav, but never twigged onto the exact reasons. Still and all, the doctrine was there, the ability wasn't is pretty much about sums it up?

That's it in a nut shell. The solution used in Germany during the 1980s was to add twelve M-113s carrying GSR teams, except that they were only of use at night or in bad weather. Not that the Soviets had any sort of radar detection equipment....:rolleyes:

[dragoon500ly]

What about track noise?
I'm yet to find a single tracked vehicle that doesn't clank and squeal every time it moves an inch. Might be able to sneak up on other vehicles with engines running, but on infantry I just can't see it....

On a M-1, the worst noise makers are the brakes, especially when the driver slams them on. They can easily be heard 3-400 meters off. The tracks, on hard ground, can also be heard, but at less than half the distance of the brakes. On soft ground, the M-1 is like a cat (as long as the driver lays off the brakes!). Sneaking the tank took some coordination between the TC/driver, but it was done on a routine basis.

The other big contender was the Leopard II. It was coming into service during my last tour and we had fun running circles around it! Compared to a M-1, it was not as fast and not as agile. In the various "unofficial" races, a 2ACR M-1 loaded with crew, full equipment and 40 rounds of main gun would leave a Leo II, with just TC and driver, basic equipment and no ammunition, eating its mud on every bit of terrain from hard-surfaced roads to mud trails (and when the Leo II bellied out, the M-1 came back and pulled it out...LMAO!)

The M-1 has better fire control and night sights than the Leo II. The only feature that the Leo had that I would loved to have was the TC sight. Once the gunner was lased to target, the Leo TC could search for another target, lock on and lase and as soon as the gunner was finished, hit a switch and the turret would move to align with the TC's target, it shaves 2-3 seconds off during a gunnery.

[Panther Al]

You know, always wanted to get up close to a leopard but never got the chance. I was always impressed by them- the latest versions more so. I am curious though how the latest version matches up to the M1A2.

[dragoon500ly]

You know, always wanted to get up close to a leopard but never got the chance. I was always impressed by them- the latest versions more so. I am curious though how the latest version matches up to the M1A2.

Gunnery wise, at least from what I've heard over the years, the M-1A2 still beats the Leopard II. But this reflects more on where the Leo II is designed to fight, since Europe rarely has areas where you can engage at 2,000+ meters, the Germans see the ability to get off the first shot as more important than engaging at the earliest possible moment. Both sides have merit, but as to who is right...

With the latest uparmoring of the Leo II, its agility is significantly below that of the M-1. I've read articles in some of the various journals, that while the US is considering replacing the turbine with a diesel, that the Germans are considering going with turbines, go figure.

[Panther Al]

Gunnery wise, at least from what I've heard over the years, the M-1A2 still beats the Leopard II. But this reflects more on where the Leo II is designed to fight, since Europe rarely has areas where you can engage at 2,000+ meters, the Germans see the ability to get off the first shot as more important than engaging at the earliest possible moment. Both sides have merit, but as to who is right...

With the latest uparmoring of the Leo II, its agility is significantly below that of the M-1. I've read articles in some of the various journals, that while the US is considering replacing the turbine with a diesel, that the Germans are considering going with turbines, go figure.

That's not all that surprising, though I have heard talk of a 1650hp MTU pack being bandied about. What's really making me wonder though is the 55 calibre barrel the latest marks sport: how does that effect theoretical long range gunnery?

[pmulcahy11b]

That's not all that surprising, though I have heard talk of a 1650hp MTU pack being bandied about. What's really making me wonder though is the 55 calibre barrel the latest marks sport: how does that effect theoretical long range gunnery?

Longer caliber = greater stabilization of the round before it leaves the barrel and greater muzzle velocity = longer range.

[Panther Al]

True enough: But only if there is enough propellent to make use of the longer barrel. I am tempted to say that there is judging by the muzzle flash I've always seen, but...


I don't know for certain.

[Panther Al]

I really really wish I still had a copy - or knew where to find again - a collection of studies done in the early 70's on performance of (then) current tank main guns compared to the second world war. I think it was done by the germans - 90% certain of this - and it came to some interesting conclusions.

If memory serves - I am not about to try to recall specifics - the conclusion was that the Soviets, then and now (again, Now refers to the early 70's through out) are still lagging significantly behind the west, due mostly to propellent issues. (Some thing they still have issues with even in 2011.) Unsurprisingly, the rate German cannon of the Second as on the whole vastly superior to the others, which to be fair, is mostly true. They further said the only guns the allies had that actually performed to standard was the US 76mm and the British 17 pounder - they was amazed that neither army type standardized on them instead of issuing them piecemeal. Another interesting conclusion was that the infamous 88 of Tiger 1 fame was actually not as good as everyone thought. It was actually, for its size, underpowered. Much like the US 90mm tank gun. And the only reason the L48 75mm guns of the Mk 4's was so much better than the allied guns, was because the allied guns by and large left a lot to be desired. The true winners of the period was the 7.5cm Kwk42 L/10 and the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 - and the KwK42 was the better of the pair due to ammo size - much easier to handle KwK42 rounds then the incredibly long KwK43 rounds.

But here is the funny thing. They ran the numbers and compared them to the western standard L7A1 - which the considered one of the best cannon designs ever, high praise from the Germans - and if you gave the KwK 42 modern ammo, and modern sights, it performed very close to the L7A1 - and the KwK43 even closer. In fact, it was theorized, that if you gave the KwK43 a smoothbore, and use fin stabilized ammo, it would actually outperform the L7A1 with the original ammo developed at its induction - mainly because of muzzle velocity. Now, by the 70's, and certainly by the 80's and 90's ammo for the L7A1 has improved by leaps and bounds making this comparison rather moot. Why this caught my eye is I think this might have been one of the pushes that gave Rheinmetall the idea to develop the 120mm Smoothbore of fame and legend - from it being a smoothbore, as well as perhaps the idea to make the rounds light and compact by using combustable cases.

[Adm.Lee]

I think I'm missing something here. Is the Army planning to replace all Bradleys with Strykers? Or most, or just some?

FWIW, I'm in agreement with the majority-- wheeled APCs are great assets for peacekeepers and light cavalry.

[dragoon500ly]

True enough: But only if there is enough propellent to make use of the longer barrel. I am tempted to say that there is judging by the muzzle flash I've always seen, but...


I don't know for certain.

Except that the new 120mm still uses NATO standard 120mm ammo. What happens is that a significant amount of propellent isn't burned up during firing, the L/55 simply burns up more of the propellent hence more oomph to the projectile.

[dragoon500ly]

I think I'm missing something here. Is the Army planning to replace all Bradleys with Strykers? Or most, or just some?

FWIW, I'm in agreement with the majority-- wheeled APCs are great assets for peacekeepers and light cavalry.

Its not so much as the Army is planning on replacing heavy armor with Strykers, its that the Army has gutted the heavy armor force, replacing it with Strykers, to such an extent that there is serious doubt that the Army can go one-on-one with any heavy force.

While Strykers are a badly needed updating of the light divisions, I strongly feel that de-mobbing heavy divisions and ACRs in order to field even more Stryker brigades is a policy that the US Army will eventually come to regret. The only questions are when and where it will bite us and most importantly how many soldiers will be killed or injured because our "leadership" has decided that a souped up RV is the combat vehicle of the future. I guess those with numerous stars on their shoulders have watched too many reruns of Stripes.

My five cents...

[Panther Al]

Except that the new 120mm still uses NATO standard 120mm ammo. What happens is that a significant amount of propellent isn't burned up during firing, the L/55 simply burns up more of the propellent hence more oomph to the projectile.

I was hoping that was the case: I didn't see the Germans making either a tube that was longer than the charge would allow, or making special rounds for the long tubes.

[Legbreaker]

The RAAC Memorial and Army Tank Museum at Pukapunyal in Victoria has a display showing the effects of various rounds on armour plate which had been cut from a naval ship in the process of decommissioning. Everything from a 2 pounder up through an early guided missile and 105mm AP.
I think there's about a dozen plates one behind the other with about an inch or so between them. Some rounds only penetrate one or two plates, while the larger ones bore through several feet of hardened armour before stopping.
It's a shame they don't have those plates (which are located just outside the front door) on their website.
http://www.armytankmuseum.com.au/i-vd.htm
On the other hand, one of the friendly staff might take a few photos of them if you were to ask nicely.

[ArmySGT.]

I think I'm missing something here. Is the Army planning to replace all Bradleys with Strykers? Or most, or just some?

FWIW, I'm in agreement with the majority-- wheeled APCs are great assets for peacekeepers and light cavalry.

The Stryker Brigades are based on the Armored Cavalry Regiment. A force rounded out with Mech infantry, and supporting Artillery, Armor, Air Cav, and support units.

It is meant for the Rapid Deployment Role. As in get some assets there on the ground (Airhead) while Heavy Units go by sea (Beach head). All the originators have retired, and mission creep has set in.

The Brigades are meant to be modular, plug n play. So since it is a prebuilt package. You could put three Stryker Brigades together and call it a Stryker Division. Send one ahead of the Heavies but as part of a Heavy force structure.

The though is and I will quote from the Cavalry here " Gets there firstest, with deh mostest". That a well rounded force with good weapons, good speed, outstanding coordination is better than a Light Infantry armed with ATGMs waiting for M1s that will be transported by ship arriving in 30 days.

Saddam could have killed the 82nd and the 101st if he had invaded Saudi Arabia as soon as they arrived. History would be remarkably different if Saddam were an able Commander.

[pmulcahy11b]

Saddam could have killed the 82nd and the 101st if he had invaded Saudi Arabia as soon as they arrived. History would be remarkably different if Saddam were an able Commander.

We were quite aware of that at the 82nd, and we were expecting a hard fight from arrival. The rumors were that Saudi Arabia was next on Saddam's agenda. and main reason we sat on Green Ramp for four days after being called in was because they were debating a combat drop into Kuwait. Which would have been interesting for me if they did an immediate combat drop; being new to the Division, my 8th jump would have been a combat drop.

[Panther Al]

If you take a look at a earlier post I made on the uses of such a brigade like the Stryker, you would see 'speed bump' listed. :)


And you are right- while I will quibble on the good firepower bit - I think you are being generous, such a role is some that the brigade aught to be good at. Sucks to be in said unit, but there it is.

[Adm.Lee]

Its not so much as the Army is planning on replacing heavy armor with Strykers, its that the Army has gutted the heavy armor force, replacing it with Strykers, to such an extent that there is serious doubt that the Army can go one-on-one with any heavy force.

While Strykers are a badly needed updating of the light divisions, I strongly feel that de-mobbing heavy divisions and ACRs in order to field even more Stryker brigades is a policy that the US Army will eventually come to regret. The only questions are when and where it will bite us and most importantly how many soldiers will be killed or injured because our "leadership" has decided that a souped up RV is the combat vehicle of the future. I guess those with numerous stars on their shoulders have watched too many reruns of Stripes.

My five cents...

I understand that part, I'm just looking for numbers-- how many brigades have gone over to Strykers, vs. mech & armor? Are Armor battalions being converted, and if so, is it temporary/wartime or permanent?

[dragoon500ly]

I understand that part, I'm just looking for numbers-- how many brigades have gone over to Strykers, vs. mech & armor? Are Armor battalions being converted, and if so, is it temporary/wartime or permanent?

Here is what the Army looks like, at least as of 2008:

1st Armored Division: 2 heavy, 1 Stryker. 1 infantry and 1 aviation brigade
1st Cavalry Division: 4 heavy and 1 aviation brigades
1st Infantry Division: 2 heavy, 2 infantry and 1 aviation brigades
2nd Infantry Division: 1 heavy, 3 Stryker and 1 aviaiton brigades
3rd Infantry Division: 3 heavy, 1 Stryker and 1 aviaiton brigades
4th Infantry Division: 3 heavy, 1 infantry and 1 aviation brigades
10th Mountain Division: 4 infantry and 1 aviation brigades
25th Infantry Division: 2 Stryker, 1 infantry, 1 airborne and 1 aviation brigades
82nd Airborne Division: 4 airborne and 1 aviation brigades
101st Air Assault Division: 4 air assault and 2 aviation brigades
170th Infantry Brigade: heavy
172nd Infantry Brigade: heavy
173rd Airborne Brigade: airborne
2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment
3rd Stryker Cavalry Regiment
11th Armored Cavalry Regiment: the two bn OPFOR at Fort Irwin NTC

that's a total of 17 heavy; 9 Stryker; 9 infantry; 6 airborne, 4 air assault and 11 aviation brigades.

Since this copy of the Army Times Green Book came out, four of the heavy brigades have been converted to Stryker and there are plans to convert another three heavy into Stryker by 2012. That is a total of 10 heavy and 16 Stryker brigades....and this does not include the NG divisions.

And these will be permanent changes.


Now you can see the concern of the old time tankers....

[Adm.Lee]

Here is what the Army looks like, at least as of 2008:


that's a total of 17 heavy; 9 Stryker; 9 infantry; 6 airborne, 4 air assault and 11 aviation brigades.

Since this copy of the Army Times Green Book came out, four of the heavy brigades have been converted to Stryker and there are plans to convert another three heavy into Stryker by 2012. That is a total of 10 heavy and 16 Stryker brigades....


Right, thanks. What do you mean by "infantry"-- do we have leg brigades again?

[Panther Al]

*hrms*

You know, while packing up for a move to the DC area (the transfer is coming through, yay! Maybe I can find a group finally!), I have found that you need to throw things away every now and then when I found a old Fall 1987 Issue of "The Hook".


Jeesh.

[dragoon500ly]

Right, thanks. What do you mean by "infantry"-- do we have leg brigades again?

I've been having problems getting an exact answer. The infantry brigades are essentially light infantry formations, the issue is whether there are 3 bns or just 2 bns plus their assigned FA and spt bns. I've also seen articles that state that these formations may be upgraded to Stryker as well. I have seen nothing "official" saying yea or nay as to this.

The heavy brigades are supposed to be made up of either 2 armd and 1 mech or vice versa (these are 3 company battalions) supported by a SP FA and a support battalion.

The Stryker brigades are 3 battalion with a towed FA and a support battalion.

The airborne and air assault brigades are both 3 battalion, towed FA and support battalion.

[Adm.Lee]

OK. I'd understood that all brigades were dropping to 2 line battalions (armor, mech or Stryker) and a Stryker cavalry squadron, and that the light infantry battalions were the first ones to go to Stryker.

Where is the 170th IB(M)? That's a new one to me.

IMO, a split of half/half between heavy and light brigades works for me, but I would try to keep the heavies together in the same divisions. Counerinsurgency/peacekeeping/LIC division commanders aren't as needed as they are in high-intensity combat, so I think the command cohesion of the heavy divisions is pretty important.

[dragoon500ly]

OK. I'd understood that all brigades were dropping to 2 line battalions (armor, mech or Stryker) and a Stryker cavalry squadron, and that the light infantry battalions were the first ones to go to Stryker.

Where is the 170th IB(M)? That's a new one to me.

IMO, a split of half/half between heavy and light brigades works for me, but I would try to keep the heavies together in the same divisions. Counerinsurgency/peacekeeping/LIC division commanders aren't as needed as they are in high-intensity combat, so I think the command cohesion of the heavy divisions is pretty important.

The 170th is based at Baumholder, Germany

As to just what the final makeup will be....considering that there are 13 heavy brigades, and converting one of the three battalions to Stryker......

Anyhow, here are the eight NG divisions:

28th Infantry Division (PA & FL NG): 1 heavy, 2 infantry, 1 Stryker and 1 aviation brigades.

29th Infantry Division (VA & MD NG): 1 heavy, 1 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

34th Infantry Division (MN & IA NG): 1 heavy, 2 light, 1 cavalry and 1 aviation bdes

35th Infantry Division (KS & NE NG): 3 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

36th Infantry Division (TX NG): 1 heavy, 4 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

38th Infantry Division (IN, MI & OH NG): 2 infantry and 1 aviation bdes, 1 ACR (really a heavy brigade)

40th Infantry Division (CA NG): 1 heavy, 3 infantry and 1 aviation bdes

42nd Infantry Division (NY, NJ, VT, & ME NG): 3 infantry & 1 aviation bdes.

This info is to be taken with a 25lb bag of salt. The latest Congressional Records refer to the NG losing all of its divisions and reorganizing into 39 brigades. While the Regular Army infantry brigades appear to be reorganizing, the NG infantry brigades are formed of 2 infantry and 1 Stryker battalions.

There are also a variety of Surveillance Brigades with the NG, these appear to be based on a cavalry squadron, reinforced with GSR and drone capability.

[Panther Al]

*hrms*

You know, while packing up for a move to the DC area (the transfer is coming through, yay! Maybe I can find a group finally!), I have found that you need to throw things away every now and then when I found a old Fall 1987 Issue of "The Hook".


Jeesh.

Another random observation.

While I had just finished many a day in the hospital, not all news was bad. Despite my best efforts, my Cholesterol was actually (if only barely) in the "OK" range.

This is good.

This, however, is bad.

From the Flat I am looking at in Frederick, within sight, there is:

A Ben and Jerry's.
A 5 Guys Burger Joint.
A bagel shop.

And down the road,
A Teavana,
And a Cali Pizza Kitchen.


Yeah kiss my diet goodbye.

[Legbreaker]

My advice?
Get good curtains.

[Panther Al]

*laughs*


Smartass.

[ArmySGT.]

My advice?
Get good curtains.

Tin foil on the windows is good too.

[Legbreaker]

Tin foil will stop those government mind reading rays too... :D

[bobcat]

Tin foil will stop those government mind reading rays too... :D

that only works when its worn as a hat.

[dragoon500ly]

you can also try using a taser on yourself.....especially when walking past the Ben & Jerry's!

[Targan]

What is Ben & Jerry's?

[Panther Al]

Probably the Worlds Best Ice Cream. Hands down. Without a doubt. Pricey, but worth every penny.

[Targan]

Ah, thanks. Good to know! :D

[Panther Al]

In honor of my 500th post, and that wee little game in Auckland not all that long ago:

[ArmySGT.]

These are the only motorcycles I can really get excited about.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Gunstuff/zuendapp750.jpg

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j218/ArmySGT_photos/Gunstuff/zuendapp750wtrailer.gif

[Targan]

in honor of my 500th post, and that wee little game in auckland not all that long ago:

:D Excellent!

[Panther Al]

Of course, you do have to accept that the Blacks are going to do it again in the UK right? :)

After all, it wouldn't by rugby if we didn't have the French whining about something!

















(Granted, while the better team did win in the end, we was rather outplayed the whole game)

[Targan]

Of course, you do have to accept that the Blacks are going to do it again in the UK right? :)

Of course!

(Granted, while the better team did win in the end, we was rather outplayed the whole game)

Blasphemer! The All Blacks were just lulling the French into a false sense of security.

[Graebarde]

Of course, you do have to accept that the Blacks are going to do it again in the UK right? :)

After all, it wouldn't by rugby if we didn't have the French whining about something!

(Granted, while the better team did win in the end, we was rather outplayed the whole game)

Heck, if they had racked up points then you would really hear the whine.. don't you know this is the age of let everyone win or make them feel good in loosing.. they fail to realize they are not number two, rather hold first place... first looser.

And the whine... there's plenty of stinky cheese that goes good with a whine. Go Blacks~~ FB

[dragoon500ly]

This thread has been way too quite for way too long!

The Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron was part of every armored division in the WWII Army, its organization is intresting...

Squadron HQ Troop
HQ Section: 2 jeeps, 2 halftracks
Communications Section: 4 2.5-ton trucks, 3 M8 armd cars, 1 halftrack
Squadron Admin and Personnel Section:1 jeep, 1 2.5-ton truck w/trailer
HQ Service Troop
HQ Platoon
HQ Section:1 jeep
AM&S Section: 1 2.5-ton truck w/trailer
Maintenance Section:1 halftrack w/trailer
Transportation Section:1 jeep, 6 2.5-ton trucks w/6 trailers
Maintenance Platoon:1 jeep, 1 M8 armd car, 1 M32 ARV, 1 halftrack, 1
6-ton wrecker, 2 2.5-ton trucks w/trailers
Supply Section:3 2.5-ton trucks w/trailers
3 Recon Troops, each with
HQ Section: 3 jeeps, 2 M8 armd cars
AM&S Section: 3 halftracks w/trailers, 1 2.5-ton truck w/trailer
Maintenance Section: 1 jeep, 1 M8 armd car, 1 halftrack w/trailer
3 Recon Platoons, each with
Armored Car Section:3 M8 armd cars
Scout Section: 6 jeeps
Light Tank Company
Company Headquarters
HQ Section: 1 jeep, 2 M5 Stuart light tanks
AM&S Section: 1 2.5-ton truck w/trailer
Maintenance Section: 1 jeep, 1 halftrack, 1 ARV
3 Light Tank Platoons, each with:5 M5 Stuart light tanks
Assault Gun Troop
HQ Section: 1 jeep, 1 halftrack
AM&S Section:1 2.5-ton truck w/trailer
Maintenance Section: 1 jeep, 1 halftrack, 1 ARV
4 Assault Gun Platoons, each with
HQ Section: 1 halftrack, 1 halftrack w/trailer
Gun Section: 2 M-8 HMC w/trailers
Ammo Section: 1 halftrack w/trailer

Hmmmmmm, 1944-1989....pretty much the same config!

[pmulcahy11b]

you can also try using a taser on yourself.....especially when walking past the Ben & Jerry's!

I saw part of a show the other day, where the police were shooting at a streaker. The police officer that hit him first was a female...wouldn't you know it, she got him in the balls...:(

[Panther Al]

Dude! Dragoon is back!

[dragoon500ly]

LOL

Been waaaaayyyy to stupid at work!

Been digging through some of the service's more remote warehouses...and it still amazes me just what some supply officer/nco stashes in remote corners:

Two crates of 3.5-inch bazookas, Korean War issue and never been used!

A propeller from a landing craft....at Fort Hood?!

And among a stack of replacement gun tubes, two tubes for an M-60A2...glad to see some things just never, ever change!

[dragoon500ly]

I saw part of a show the other day, where the police were shooting at a streaker. The police officer that hit him first was a female...wouldn't you know it, she got him in the balls...:(

There was a video of someone testing a net gun, and hitting the, ahem, same target when the round failed to deploy.

Guy just can't get a break!

[dragoon500ly]

Soooo...

At the height of the Cold War who fielded the best tank cannon?

For NATO I'd have to say the 105mm cannon L7A1/M68 series was the best of the lot. Decent engagement envelope, effective out to 2,500m, excellent rate of fire, officially 7rpm, but a first class loader pulling vacuum loads could crank 12-15rpm and sheer number of platforms it was deployed on: Upgraded Centurion, M-48A5, M-60, M-60A1, M-60A3, M-1, IPM-1, Leopard I.

For the Soviets, without a doubt the 115mm smootbore U-5TS mounted on the T-62 series was the best gun, unlike the NATO designs the Soviets went for short-range accuracy, Soviet doctrine held that tanks did not engage until 1,500m, but Israeli tests showed the 115mm was suprisingly accurate out to 2,500m. Its biggest fault is the poor quality of Soviet fire control equipment, when refitted with laser rangefinders and Western ballistic computers, well, the Israelis chose not to replace the 115mm on their captured T-62s. Rate of fire is excellent, capable of 7rpm, although there are reports that the accuracy of the U-5TS fell off during sustained combat due to the effects of a hot barrel and fouling due to the incomplete combustion of the propellent (quality control issues).

[Panther Al]

Soooo...

At the height of the Cold War who fielded the best tank cannon?

For NATO I'd have to say the 105mm cannon L7A1/M68 series was the best of the lot. Decent engagement envelope, effective out to 2,500m, excellent rate of fire, officially 7rpm, but a first class loader pulling vacuum loads could crank 12-15rpm and sheer number of platforms it was deployed on: Upgraded Centurion, M-48A5, M-60, M-60A1, M-60A3, M-1, IPM-1, Leopard I.

For the Soviets, without a doubt the 115mm smootbore U-5TS mounted on the T-62 series was the best gun, unlike the NATO designs the Soviets went for short-range accuracy, Soviet doctrine held that tanks did not engage until 1,500m, but Israeli tests showed the 115mm was suprisingly accurate out to 2,500m. Its biggest fault is the poor quality of Soviet fire control equipment, when refitted with laser rangefinders and Western ballistic computers, well, the Israelis chose not to replace the 115mm on their captured T-62s. Rate of fire is excellent, capable of 7rpm, although there are reports that the accuracy of the U-5TS fell off during sustained combat due to the effects of a hot barrel and fouling due to the incomplete combustion of the propellent (quality control issues).

Makes perfect sense. The L7A1 is still more than good enough in my opinion with the newer ammo types out there, and the 115 wasn't a slouch either.


The fact that you brought up barrel fouling is a case in point with the biggest issue with large calibre russian/soviet ammo: it isn't as good as the west. Chemistry, materials, who knows, just ounce for ounce their boomenstuff just isn't that good. Its why the L11 76mm gun that served on the original T34 was only the equal to the 5cm KwK of the Panzer 3's, and that is the reason that to equal the performance of the 7.5cm L48 KwK they had to go all the way to the 85mm D5T and all the way to a 122mm to equal the 7.5cm L70 KwK. Russian gun design, awesome. Ammo? not so much.

[Olefin]

LOL

Been waaaaayyyy to stupid at work!

Been digging through some of the service's more remote warehouses...and it still amazes me just what some supply officer/nco stashes in remote corners:

Two crates of 3.5-inch bazookas, Korean War issue and never been used!

A propeller from a landing craft....at Fort Hood?!

And among a stack of replacement gun tubes, two tubes for an M-60A2...glad to see some things just never, ever change!

Now there are several ideas for great finds in the game! And I know what you are talking about - we got stuff sent to us that is mismarked from Army bases and depots all the time that when you open the box its the wrong thing.

[dragoon500ly]

Makes perfect sense. The L7A1 is still more than good enough in my opinion with the newer ammo types out there, and the 115 wasn't a slouch either.


The fact that you brought up barrel fouling is a case in point with the biggest issue with large calibre russian/soviet ammo: it isn't as good as the west. Chemistry, materials, who knows, just ounce for ounce their boomenstuff just isn't that good. Its why the L11 76mm gun that served on the original T34 was only the equal to the 5cm KwK of the Panzer 3's, and that is the reason that to equal the performance of the 7.5cm L48 KwK they had to go all the way to the 85mm D5T and all the way to a 122mm to equal the 7.5cm L70 KwK. Russian gun design, awesome. Ammo? not so much.

The 100mm D-10T2S fitted to the T-54/55 series is an intresting contrast. Effective range is 1080-1,200m, depending on the ammo used, with a max rate of fire of only 3-4rpm

The standard 90mm as fitted to the M-47/48 series have an effective range of 1,500m and a rate of fire of 5-6rpm

[Panther Al]

The 100mm D-10T2S fitted to the T-54/55 series is an intresting contrast. Effective range is 1080-1,200m, depending on the ammo used, with a max rate of fire of only 3-4rpm

The standard 90mm as fitted to the M-47/48 series have an effective range of 1,500m and a rate of fire of 5-6rpm

True enough: and that same 90mm was only *just* barely the equal of the 7.5cm KwK42 that was in the Panther. Say what you will, the Germans know how to build large guns.

[dragoon500ly]

True enough: and that same 90mm was only *just* barely the equal of the 7.5cm KwK42 that was in the Panther. Say what you will, the Germans know how to build large guns.

No argument here, instead of using the wire-bound design that the Brits used, they used the built-up method, tubes may have been heavier, but they certainly had the advantage in the range envelope, not to mention enjoying a much longer barrel life.

[Graebarde]

LOL

Been waaaaayyyy to stupid at work!

Been digging through some of the service's more remote warehouses...and it still amazes me just what some supply officer/nco stashes in remote corners:

Two crates of 3.5-inch bazookas, Korean War issue and never been used!

A propeller from a landing craft....at Fort Hood?!

And among a stack of replacement gun tubes, two tubes for an M-60A2...glad to see some things just never, ever change!

Yeah some things never change. Went to Ft Picket in '73/4? for LogEx. As a driver I had all kinds of free time. At the time Picket was a ghost fort except for a few areas the VaNG kept up for training purposes, but that was only about 10-15% of the WW2 'temporary' buildings. Those abandoned buildings were OFF LIMITS, but did that stop me and a buddy from exploring? Nope..

Old theater coughed up two cases of BAR magazines in the grease.
Tripod for M1919 MG
Base plate for 60mm mortar...

what would have been a battalion HQ building we found some old old FMs, a box of maps (none of which were for the local area I might add)

The Hospital was creepy as we went there late in the day. Trees were growing up through the roof, windows smashed, there was white enamelware everywhere.. urnals, bedpans, washbasins, is what I recall offhand, but we didn't stay long.. pig patrol rolled by and we high tailed it out of there.

But until you jogged the gears and blew some cobwebs away it was a forgotten memory. Some strange things can be found in out of the way places... the theater being the out of placed stuff.

[dragoon500ly]

What amazes me is the sheer number of "never been issued" gear that turns up in the most unlikely of places.

On of my first warehouse audits was at Fort Bragg...where we found a WWII GI issue footlocker, stuffed with OSS manuals, buried in a pile of crates stuffed with winter clothing....in a range control warehouse!

[pmulcahy11b]

I get that thrill every time I start rooting around in the junk room, my closet, or the garage...

[dragoon500ly]

Punishment was severe even for minor offenses and many officers believed that every violation committed deserved some infliction of bodily pain. It was also believed by hardcore, veteran officers that such brutality would instill fear into the men, and by this fear, they would be more controllable. However, this was not always the case. As the pattern of harsh punishments continued, a higher rate of desertions followed. Gambling, insubordination, absence from garrison without a pass, being unruly after taps, drunkenness, theft and tardiness at roll call were all considered to be serious violations of military discipline.

If a soldier was caught stealing government selling or destroying government property, he was certain to be “bucked and gagged.” The man would be seated on the ground, fleet flat and knees up. His wrists were bound in front, somewhat hugging his knees. A short pole was then thrust across the bend of his arms and beneath the knees, rendering him helpless. Finally he was gagged with a piece of soap or scrap wood and then left for a period of from four to six hours.

A soldier might be condemned to be “on the chimes.” This required the man to balance on the edge of a wooden barrel for half a day. One false move and the soldier might find himself sprawling on the ground with damage to leg or knee, or heaped within the barrel, wedged like a sardine. Close by, a guard would be posted to insure that the condemned soldier would fully serve out his sentence.

Wearing a “wooden overcoat” was another method of punishment. The bottom of a barrel was knocked out and hole was cut into the top, just large enough to slip over a man’s head. The victim would then be paraded around post in this manner for the duration of the day.

Another common method of punishment in the infantry was “knapsack drill,” in which the soldier carried heavy stones in his backpack, marching to the beat of a guard for several hours. In the cavalry, the helpless trooper would be forces to carry his saddle, with full field equipment, strapped to his back. In the artillery, the gunner would endure “isolation on a platform,” where he would be ties spread-eagled to a wagon wheel for twenty-four hours.

Carrying a twenty-five or thirty-pound log on one’s shoulder and “walking the ring” for the day was a common punishment for minor offenses. All of these punishments would carried out on the parade ground, regardless of heavy rains, scorching sun or subfreezing weather.

For leaving post without proper authorization, failure to salute an officer, being seated while on duty, or reporting without proper equipment, a man might be committed to “double guard”. Instead of the customary two hours on guard and four hours off, it was reversed to four hour on guard and two hours off.

Policing the camp, cleaning about the picket lines where the horses were tied, or digging new latrines were punishments assessed for the least offenses. If a soldier could keep off the black-list in his company, he would often be exempt from these less agreeable jobs due to a lengthy list of sentenced offenders.

Company punishment for being drunk and disorderly generally meant being bucked and gagged, but this only gave the solider a bad taste and sore arms and legs. Further punishment involved digging a hole ten feet square and ten feet deep would restore the drunk to sobriety by the time the hole had been dug and then filled back in. If a soldier was found with a bottle in his possession, he would dug such a hole, and then bury the bottle in it. If the soldier had managed to truly enrage his first sergeant, he would often be sentenced to digging and filling such a hole, with a spoon.

If a soldier was punish for stealing, he was often punished by having one-half of his hair, mustache and beard being shaved off, being stripped to the waist and had to wear a large board tied to his back marked in large letters, “I AM A THIEF,” he would be paraded around the garrison for the day without any food or drink. At the end of the day, he would report to his company commander for a harsh lecture and then would be sent back to his quarters to face his comrades, who had been waiting for his return to welcome him back with a sound thrashing.

Once a soldier was caught and branded a thief, the shame was endured by the whole company. In many cases, the accused would desert within a few months, mainly because of the humiliation heaped on him by his officers or by the severity of the punishment for a small offense. Many veterans who had witnessed severe punishments handed out for incidental offenses urged for the formation of a “Company Q,” where a offender might serve and after a period of time of good behavior, reinstate himself. Many punishments were often handled out in violation of existing orders, but in only a few cases were any steps taken to cause their discontinuance.

Flogging was abolished in 1861 by the Army, although some officers continued to use this method of punishment for some time, the last known occurrence being in 1867.

Discharging a soldier for desertion was not a punishment at all. To the individual, it meant a little humiliation and embarrassment, being drummed out of camp before his comrades, but with his dishonorable discharge, he was finally free and rid of the Army for good. Forfeiture of all pay and allowances, except for the just dues of the company’s laundress and the sutler, were the only things that seemed to concern him. Having his head shaved and his left hip branded with a two-inch letter “D” (later replaced by an indelible ink stamping that took many washings to erase), only hurt his pride.
Punishments given out by courts did not seem to have the slightly effect in preventing desertions. The number of desertions were so high that it was almost impossible to make the soldiers look upon desertion as a serious crime.

[dragoon500ly]

The following instructions and suggestions for troops that served in the Indian country were prepared by an old Army officer as the result of actual experiences of thirty years of frontier service. They were published by General Reynolds, in General Orders No.77, Headquarters, Department of Texas, in 1859 with reference to the fact that “so many of the officers now serving in the Indian country have not had handed down to them the usages of the old Army in Indian matters and in traveling over the great plains. We publish them now, when most of our Army are serving in the Indian country and are likely to have abundant occasion to make use of all their Indian lore.”

Marching and Encamping

No soldier will leave a military post or station, on field service, without first having been carefully inspected by the commanding officer, or by some suitable person by him designated. The inspector will see that such soldier is provided with arms and equipment, serviceable in every particular; that he has the prescribed amount of ammunition; good shoes; a change of underclothing; blanket, haversack, canteen, knife, fork, spoon, tin cup, tin plate, towel, comb, razor and a piece of soap. The inspector will see that the horse of a cavalry soldier is in apparent good health and well shod; that the horse equipments are in good repair and well oiled; that there is a lariat at least twenty feet long, and an iron picket pine; also a curry-comb and horse-brush. If an officer, whether of the line or staff, is to have charge of soldiers leaving a post or stations for field service, or as escort, such officer must be present at this inspection, personally to know the conditions of his men and animals before he starts. Means of transportation leaving a post or stations with or without troops, to be absent in the field or on ordinary roads, should in like manner be critically inspected.

If the journey lies through a country infested with thieves or hostile Indians, each teamster and employee must be armed and supplied with ammunition. Each teamster must have a curry-comb, horse-brush, bucket, axe, and extra helve, hand-axe or hatchet and spade. In a train of three or more wagons there should be a pick-axe and two spades to every three wagons, with which to repair roads. With each of such trains there should be two or three scythes, complete, and scythe-stones; a hand saw; two augers of suitable sizes; a monkey-wrench; one or two mortising chisels; a coil or less of lariat rope; one or two lanterns; a band and shoeing hammer, wrought nails, mule shoes and nails; extra linchpins, tongues, bounds and coupling poles; the timbers to be tied on the outside of the wagon beds. Also extra hamess, collars, halters, singe and double trees, and trace chains; some open links; saddler’s awls; and a few buckskins. A teamster with an awl and a strip of buckskin can soon repair broken harness. There should be for service in a country infested with hostile Indians, a six-gallon water keg in good order and tight; hung under each wagon. Larger kegs cannot well be carried from where filled to the wagon by one man. If troops travel with a train, or with wagons, there should be enough of these kegs to afford at least two quarts of water to each man, including teamsters and employees.

In ordinary marches, the cavalry soldier should march on foot, leading his horse, every third hour. Of course, all mounted officers marching with cavalry organizations will set the example of traveling on foot, when the cavalry soldier is required so to travel.

There should be a halt of ten minutes after the first fifty minutes of a day’s journey and of at least five minutes at the end of every subsequent hour.

When animals receive grain forage and are in good order, a day’s journey can be made without unsaddling cavalry horses or taking draught animals out of harness. When animals depend entirely on grazing, it will keep them up longer, especially if not in good flesh, to make, say two-thirds of the journey or thereabout, and then turn out and graze, and rest until the heat of the day is past; then saddle, harness, and move on so as to arrive at camp by or before sunset. It is always better to have daylight to see the surroundings of the camping place, collect fuel, get water, etc. When grass is scarce or lacks nutriment, and horses and mules are thin in flesh and travel-worn, two halts a day should be made to enable them to graze, or they will give out and break down entirely.

If a party is small and liable to be attacked at night, it should do all its cooking in the daytime. Supper should be eaten before dark, water kegs filled, and bundles of fuel with which to cook breakfast tied under the wagons. The party should then move away from the watering hole or spring, and, after nightfall, move off road and camp in some valley or depression in the ground where the men, animals and wagons will not be seen relieved by the sky, and where an enemy, if he comes, will be thus visible. Each depression in the ground camped upon will doubtless have some run or ravine by which it is drained. In this, a gunshot distance from the camp, three sentinels, if the size of the command will admit of it, should be posted---one to stand post, the others in turn to sleep near him. Indians creep up such hollows where they might surprise a camp; they might shoot one sentinel with arrows; they could rarely shoot three with arrows before an alarm would be given. Under such circumstances a good sentinel will sit down near his comrades so that he can awaken them by a touch in case of need; will keep in the shadow, and depend upon his vigilance at night as much upon his ears as his eyes. Of course there will be other sentinels posted if the command can afford them; and these in like manner, should be posted in threes within the depression so as just to look over its rim, being in shadow and bringing against the sky any one who approaches. In a camp set for the night, there must be no loud talking, no fire, no light, no striking of flint and steel, no burning of matches. When it is determined upon before night that such a camp must be made, the men with their knives (if there be no scythes along) should grass enough for the horses and mules for the night. This they bring in on their blankets and stow it away in bundles in the wagons. By doing this, when danger of attacking is impending, all the horses and mules can be tied to the wagons or to a line and be securely fed, while the men, not being embarrassed by loose or scattered animals, have nothing to do but fight any one who menaces the camp. It often occurs when horses and mules are picketed out that a single Indian will crawl among them, cut a lariat, and gradually crawl away leading a horse or mule until out of range. He will then mount and ride slowly away until beyond earshot, and afterward double by circles of miles to catch views of the ground passed over by his own trail, that he may watch and count his pursuers as they slowly follow his tracks, step by step, himself unseen.

In hostile Indian country a small escort should always precede the person escorted. On such occasions creeks or ravines to be crossed, or canons or other dangerous places to be gone through, should be first carefully reconnoitered. After these are passed the escort will never move on without having the person escorted well up on it. If danger be imminent, two or more men will travel as an advance guard ---some fifty or one hundred yards in front, and a like number in rear as rear guard. In broken ground, one man, at least, should march a hundred yards or more on each flank, abreast of the advance guard, but always in sight of it.

Arms should be carefully inspected by the officer in charge every night before the men lie down to sleep. The carbine or musket of each soldier should be carefully loaded, the piece at half cock and laid beside its owner on his blanket, muzzle toward his feet to prevent danger from accidental discharge, and also to be in position to be readily seized and aimed. If the man has a revolver, the inspector will see that it is not only fully loaded and capped, and that the cylinder revolves easily, but that the hammer is on the stop. When danger of an attack during the night is apprehended, the man will not be permitted to remove his pistol from his person, or his shoes from his feet. In the morning, without fail, the men, teamsters and all, will fall in quickly and completely armed, when called by signal or otherwise. This practice will accustom the men to seize their arms ready to fight the moment they spring from bed---even when awakened at any hour. When everything has been prepared for the march, the officer in charge, before a man leaves the ground, will have another careful inspection of the arms and the outfit generally, personally, to know that each man is ready to fight at moment’s notice. He will see that the canteens and kegs are filled, if he is still near water; if not near water, this will be done under his own supervision at the next water on the route. Under no circumstances will teamster’s arms be stowed in wagons or feed boxes, or in the ambulances under other things, but be kept strapped to the bows of the wagon, or stanchions of the ambulance, breech toward the owner, at half cock, ready for use in a moment. Let this be remembered. Many a life has been lost by forgetting it.

The person in charge of an escort, detachment, or train should, by previous inquiries, have learned as far as possible all about the road or country he is to pass over from day to day, to the end that if no fuel is to be found at his next camp or halting place, he may have a few fagots or “buffalo chips” put on his wagons for cooking. Fires made of green wood make much smoke, which at nightfall settles along valleys and low places, and can be seen a long way off. Fires made from dried hard wood make but little smoke, which seldom settles or becomes visible, even when a norther or other sudden cold change in the weather is about to take place. The burning brands of wood left after cooking is done should at once be scattered and extinguished by shoveling dirt upon them, especially at night when fire is no longer required, even though the camp is to remain for the night; first, that the fire may not be seen; second, that sudden gusts or gales of wind may not blow sparks into wagons, tents or beds, or set the neighboring grass on fire; third; that the remaining unburned wood may be used next morning, or by yourself on your return trip, or by some needy traveler. Soldiers and teamsters have the bad habit, when about to leave a camp or halting place, of piling all remaining wood upon the fires. Fires should be extinguished and the remaining brands and logs should be scattered. It takes but very little fuel, if carefully husbanded, to boil a kettle of water for coffee, bake bread or fry a pan of meat. If possible, bread should be baked in the daytime at points where fuel is plenty. If properly made, it will last and be good for two or three days, especially in cold weather.

In Texas especially, and on the plains generally, all rivers, streams, and dry beds of creeks are subject to very sudden and dangerous floods, sometimes from distant rains, when overhead the sky is clear and not a drop of rain has fallen. Therefore troops and trains should always cross one of these and then move on to ground certain to be above the reach of any freshnet, before they encamp. This rule should never be forgotten.

[Legbreaker]

Most of those rules still apply today, if somewhat updated and improved upon.
Makes you think just how lax things were a hundred plus years ago and how little most soldiers and officers knew about light, sound, and smell discipline (and a lot still don't!).

[Graebarde]

(note: I was 'introduced' to these rules in 1968 when I entered the Infantry. I kept them taped inside my wall-locker. Though modernized the concepts and principles still apply as much today as they did in 1968, or 200 years before that.)


1.All Rangers are to be subject to the rules and articles of war; to appear at roll-call every evening, on their own parade, equipped, each with a Firelock, sixty rounds of powder and ball, and a hatchet, at which time an officer from each company is to inspect the same, to see they are in order, so as to be ready on any emergency to march at a minute's warning; and before they are dismissed, the necessary guards are to be draughted, and scouts for the next day appointed.
2.Whenever you are ordered out to the enemies forts or frontiers for discoveries, if your number be small, march in a single file, keeping at such a distance from each other as to prevent one shot from killing two men, sending one man, or more, forward, and the like on each side, at the distance of twenty yards from the main body, if the ground you march over will admit of it, to give the signal to the officer of the approach of an enemy, and of their number, &c.
3.If you march over marshes or soft ground, change your position, and march abreast of each other to prevent the enemy from tracking you (as they would do if you marched in a single file) till you get over such ground, and then resume your former order, and march till it is quite dark before you encamp, which do, if possible, on a piece of ground which that may afford your sentries the advantage of seeing or hearing the enemy some considerable distance, keeping one half of your whole party awake alternately through the night.
4.Some time before you come to the place you would reconnoitre, make a stand, and send one or two men in whom you can confide, to look out the best ground for making your observations.
5.If you have the good fortune to take any prisoners, keep them separate, till they are examined, and in your return take a different route from that in which you went out, that you may the better discover any party in your rear, and have an opportunity, if their strength be superior to yours, to alter your course, or disperse, as circumstances may require.
6.If you march in a large body of three or four hundred, with a design to attack the enemy, divide your party into three columns, each headed by a proper officer, and let those columns march in single files, the columns to the right and left keeping at twenty yards distance or more from that of the center, if the ground will admit, and let proper guards be kept in the front and rear, and suitable flanking parties at a due distance as before directed, with orders to halt on all eminences, to take a view of the surrounding ground, to prevent your being ambuscaded, and to notify the approach or retreat of the enemy, that proper dispositions may be made for attacking, defending, &c. And if the enemy approach in your front on level ground, form a front of your three columns or main body with the advanced guard, keeping out your flanking parties, as if you were marching under the command of trusty officers, to prevent the enemy from pressing hard on either of your wings, or surrounding you, which is the usual method of the savages, if their number will admit of it, and be careful likewise to support and strengthen your rear-guard.
7.If you are obliged to receive the enemy's fire, fall, or squat down, till it is over; then rise and discharge at them. If their main body is equal to yours, extend yourselves occasionally; but if superior, be careful to support and strengthen your flanking parties, to make them equal to theirs, that if possible you may repulse them to their main body, in which case push upon them with the greatest resolution with equal force in each flank and in the center, observing to keep at a due distance from each other, and advance from tree to tree, with one half of the party before the other ten or twelve yards. If the enemy push upon you, let your front fire and fall down, and then let your rear advance thro' them and do the like, by which time those who before were in front will be ready to discharge again, and repeat the same alternately, as occasion shall require; by this means you will keep up such a constant fire, that the enemy will not be able easily to break your order, or gain your ground.
8.If you oblige the enemy to retreat, be careful, in your pursuit of them, to keep out your flanking parties, and prevent them from gaining eminences, or rising grounds, in which case they would perhaps be able to rally and repulse you in their turn.
9.If you are obliged to retreat, let the front of your whole party fire and fall back, till the rear hath done the same, making for the best ground you can; by this means you will oblige the enemy to pursue you, if they do it at all, in the face of a constant fire.
10.If the enemy is so superior that you are in danger of being surrounded by them, let the whole body disperse, and every one take a different road to the place of rendezvous appointed for that evening, which must every morning be altered and fixed for the evening ensuing, in order to bring the whole party, or as many of them as possible, together, after any separation that may happen in the day; but if you should happen to be actually surrounded, form yourselves into a square, or if in the woods, a circle is best, and, if possible, make a stand till the darkness of the night favours your escape.
11.If your rear is attacked, the main body and flankers must face about to the right or left, as occasion shall require, and form themselves to oppose the enemy, as before directed; and the same method must be observed, if attacked in either of your flanks, by which means you will always make a rear of one of your flank-guards.
12.If you determine to rally after a retreat, in order to make a fresh stand against the enemy, by all means endeavour to do it on the most rising ground you come at, which will give you greatly the advantage in point of situation, and enable you to repulse superior numbers.
13.In general, when pushed upon by the enemy, reserve your fire till they approach very near, which will then put them into the greatest surprise and consternation, and give you an opportunity of rushing upon them with your hatchets and cutlasses to the better advantage.
14.When you encamp at night, fix your sentries in such a manner as not to be relieved from the main body till morning, profound secrecy and silence being often of the last importance in these cases. Each sentry therefore should consist of six men, two of whom must be constantly alert, and when relieved by their fellows, it should be done without noise; and in case those on duty see or hear any thing, which alarms them, they are not to speak, but one of them is silently to retreat, and acquaint the commanding officer thereof, that proper dispositions may be made; and all occasional sentries should be fixed in like manner.
15.At the first dawn of day, awake your whole detachment; that being the time when the savages choose to fall upon their enemies, you should by all means be in readiness to receive them.
16.If the enemy should be discovered by your detachments in the morning, and their numbers are superior to yours, and a victory doubtful, you should not attack them till the evening, as then they will not know your numbers, and if you are repulsed, your retreat will be favoured by the darkness of the night.
17.Before you leave your encampment, send out small parties to scout round it, to see if there be any appearance or track of an enemy that might have been near you during the night.
18.When you stop for refreshment, choose some spring or rivulet if you can, and dispose your party so as not to be surprised, posting proper guards and sentries at a due distance, and let a small party waylay the path you came in, lest the enemy should be pursuing.
19.If, in your return, you have to cross rivers, avoid the usual fords as much as possible, lest the enemy should have discovered, and be there expecting you.
20.If you have to pass by lakes, keep at some distance from the edge of the water, lest, in case of an ambuscade or an attack from the enemy, when in that situation, your retreat should be cut off.
21.If the enemy pursue your rear, take a circle till you come to your own tracks, and there form an ambush to receive them, and give them the first fire.
22.When you return from a scout, and come near our forts, avoid the usual roads, and avenues thereto, lest the enemy should have headed you, and lay in ambush to receive you, when almost exhausted with fatigues.
23.When you pursue any party that has been near our forts or encampments, follow not directly in their tracks, lest they should be discovered by their rear guards, who, at such a time, would be most alert; but endeavour, by a different route, to head and meet them in some narrow pass, or lay in ambush to receive them when and where they least expect it.
24.If you are to embark in canoes, battoes, or otherwise, by water, choose the evening for the time of your embarkation, as you will then have the whole night before you, to pass undiscovered by any parties of the enemy, on hills, or other places, which command a prospect of the lake or river you are upon.
25.In paddling or rowing, give orders that the boat or canoe next the sternmost, wait for her, and the third for the second, and the fourth for the third, and so on, to prevent separation, and that you may be ready to assist each other on any emergency.
26.Appoint one man in each boat to look out for fires, on the adjacent shores, from the numbers and size of which you may form some judgment of the number that kindled them, and whether you are able to attack them or not.
27.If you find the enemy encamped near the banks of a river or lake, which you imagine they will attempt to cross for their security upon being attacked, leave a detachment of your party on the opposite shore to receive them, while, with the remainder, you surprise them, having them between you and the lake or river.
28.If you cannot satisfy yourself as to the enemy's number and strength, from their fire, &c. conceal your boats at some distance, and ascertain their number by a reconnoitering party, when they embark, or march, in the morning, marking the course they steer, &c. when you may pursue, ambush, and attack them, or let them pass, as prudence shall direct you. In general, however, that you may not be discovered by the enemy upon the lakes and rivers at a great distance, it is safest to lay by, with your boats and party concealed all day, without noise or shew; and to pursue your intended route by night; and whether you go by land or water, give out parole and countersigns, in order to know one another in the dark, and likewise appoint a station every man to repair to, in case of any accident that may separate you.

[Graebarde]

Note: Actually I think THIS is the rules I had in my locker.. It's the SIMPLE MAN's verison of the previous. I especially like part in Nr. 4.

1.Don't forget nothing.
2.Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, sixty rounds powder and ball, and be ready to march at a minute's warning.
3.When you're on the march, act the way you would if you was sneaking up on a deer. See the enemy first.
4.Tell the truth about what you see and what you do. There is an army depending on us for correct information. You can lie all you please when you tell other folks about the Rangers, but don't never lie to a Ranger or officer.
5.Don't never take a chance you don't have to.
6.When we're on the march we march single file, far enough apart so one shot can't go through two men.
7.If we strike swamps, or soft ground, we spread out abreast, so it's hard to track us.
8.When we march, we keep moving till dark, so as to give the enemy the least possible chance at us.
9.When we camp, half the party stays awake while the other half sleeps.
10.If we take prisoners, we keep 'em separate till we have had time to examine them, so they can't cook up a story between 'em.
11.Don't ever march home the same way. Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.
12.No matter whether we travel in big parties or little ones, each party has to keep a scout 20 yards ahead, 20 yards on each flank, and 20 yards in the rear so the main body can't be surprised and wiped out.
13.Every night you'll be told where to meet if surrounded by a superior force.
14.Don't sit down to eat without posting sentries.
15.Don't sleep beyond dawn. Dawn's when the French and Indians attack.
16.Don't cross a river by a regular ford.
17.If somebody's trailing you, make a circle, come back onto your own tracks, and ambush the folks that aim to ambush you.
18.Don't stand up when the enemy's coming against you. Kneel down, lie down, hide behind a tree.
19.Let the enemy come till he's almost close enough to touch, then let him have it and jump out and finish him up with your hatchet.

[dragoon500ly]

The following instructions and suggestions for troops that served in the Indian country were prepared by an old Army officer as the result of actual experiences of thirty years of frontier service. They were published by General Reynolds, in General Orders No.77, Headquarters, Department of Texas, with reference to the fact that “so many of the officers now serving in the Indian country have not had handed down to them the usages of the old Army in Indian matters and in traveling over the great plains. We publish them now, when most of our Army are serving in the Indian country and are likely to have abundant occasion to make use of all their Indian lore.”

Treatment of Wounds and Diseases

Small detachments of troops, escorts and trains, about to march without a doctor through a country infested with hostile Indians, should be furnished with such medicines and appliances as will meet ordinary casualties and emergencies, and suffice temporarily, until assistance can be rendered by a medical officer. For example: a few dozen pills of opium and of quinine; some cathartic pills; an ounce or two of tincture of opium; a few doses of salts; a bottle of volatile liniment; a pocket case; a set of splints; a few roller bandages; a fine sponge; some patent lint; a few square inches of oiled silk; a yard of adhesive plaster; a package of tow; and a few bottles of whiskey or brandy.

In the event of a gun-shot wound the proper dressing is two layers of lint, say an inch and a half square, saturated with cold water and placed on each orifice of the wound. A piece of oiled silk, twice as large, is laid on that; and all retained in place, say, by a pocket handkerchief. This dressing should be kept on until the parts become stiff and painful---two to six days, according to the season---when the dressing should be removed, and either a similar dressing or warm water, or a bread-and-water poultice, should be applied and renewed once or twice daily. The less a wounded man eats the first five or six days, the better. After that he requires nourishment. If the wound is a simple punctured wound, and if at any time it becomes severely painful, the pledget of lint wetted with the tincture of opium instead of water will be applied, and water should be instituted at the next dressing if the pain has been relieved. If a bone has been fractured by the ball in transit, the first mentioned dressing must be used as directed; than a roller bandage will be applied to the limb, commencing at the fingers or the toes according to the limb wounded; a splint is then applied to two or four sides of the limb to steady the bone, and is retained by another roller bandage. Care should be taken not to apply the bandage too tight at first, lest the swelling of limb should occasion much pain. An incised wound---that is, a wound made by a sharp cutting instrument---should be drawn together closely, the surface of the skin about the wound should be wrapped dry and strips of adhesive plaster, half an inch wide and several inches long, should be applied across it so as to keep the parts in contact, and cold water, lint, oiled silk, and handkerchief employed as directed above.

Should the blood be jetting from an incised wound, the wound must be pressed open, the mouth of the vessel at the point where the blood jets out must be seized by a pair of tweezers of forceps, and turned around once or twice, and the wound be then closed and dressed as above directed. A simple contused wound does best without any application. A limb bitten by a snake should be tied by a band above the place bitten, volatile liniment kept upon the wound and constantly applied to the whole limb, the patient at the same time sustained by draughts of whiskey or brandy sufficient to stimulate but not intoxicate. Scouts that visit the settlements of Mexicans along the Rio Grande should learn from that people how to employ in snake bites the golondrineria or swallowwort. It is said to be a prompt specific for the rattlesnake bite. It may be bruised, leaves , stem and root, the juice expressed and drunk by the spoonful, and also be applied to the wound. Wounds made by Indian arrows may be treated as incised or punctured wounds. If suspected of being poisoned, they should be treated as snake bites. Stretchers, if necessary, may be extemporized by poles and pieces cut in the woods, or by using tent poles and a blanket lashed to them. In the event of heatstroke, if the patient have a pale face and feeble pulse, apply the cold douche by pailfuls of cold water dashed over his head and body, and whiskey or brandy toddy constantly given until he revives or his pulse becomes natural.

If, when marching or in camp, by day or night, the Indians set fire to the grass to the windward, to burn your train or camp you must at once set the grass on fire to the leeward, and keep it from burning up toward your train or camp, by the men beating it out with their blankets. Then move on to burnt place far enough to the leeward to be out of danger of the approaching flames.

It will be well for soldiers always to remember this simple rule when traveling in a country infested with hostile Indians: If you think there are no Indians near, then is the time to be especially on your guard. The Indians are wily and very patient. They will hover about and watch you sometimes for days and days, to find you relaxing your vigilance and at length off your guard. They see and know full well when you think they are not near. That is just the time when, as a panther which has patiently watched its prey, they make their spring. It is better to be prudent all the time---and even more than cautious---than to be left on foot or to lose life.

[dragoon500ly]

Most of those rules still apply today, if somewhat updated and improved upon.
Makes you think just how lax things were a hundred plus years ago and how little most soldiers and officers knew about light, sound, and smell discipline (and a lot still don't!).

All too true!

Then you get a book like "Black Hawk Down" and its story of how a "elite" unit like the Rangers, forget to bring such basics as canteens, NVGs and even reserve ammo on a combat mission.

:confused:

[Graebarde]

All too true!

Then you get a book like "Black Hawk Down" and its story of how a "elite" unit like the Rangers, forget to bring such basics as canteens, NVGs and even reserve ammo on a combat mission.

:confused:

Oh but we'll be back WAY before dark, so no NVG, just extra weight.. possibly understand, but each team should have had one at least, and water and ammo should have maxed them out for the rest probably. LEADERS FAILED.. definate NO-GO on that phase, and the penealty was, well we know what it was. CASULTIES,

[dragoon500ly]

The Soviet Union deploys a Regimental Reconnaissance Company with every tank and motor rifle regiment, its make up is as follows:

Total Strength is 4-5 officers and 43-57 enlisted.
Equipment: 3 BMP-2/PT-76/or MBT, 9 BRDM-2s, 3-5 motorcycles, 1 GS-12 radar. Each BRDM has 1 LMG and 1 RPG-7 for dismounted use.

The Division Reconnaissance Battalion is organic to the tank and motor rifle divisions, is made of as follows:

Headquarters and Support Company: 9 officers, 40 enlisted men; 2 BRDM-2, 16 trucks, 1 motorcycle.

Tank Company: 4 officers, 31 enlisted men; one HQ IFV/tank, and two platoons of three BMP-2/PT-76/MBT

Reconnaissance Company: 5 officers, 63 enlisted men; with
HQ Section with 1 BRDM-2
2 or 3 Scout Car platoons, 6 BRDM-2 each
NBC Recon Platoon with 4 BRDM-rkh
Motorcycle platoon with 32 motorcycles

Long Range Reconnaissance Company: 6 officers, 27 enlisted men,

Radio Interception Company

The Long Range Reconnaissance Company typically operates from 50-350km in advance of the main body. They may be carried forward by BRDMs of the Reconnaissance Company or inserted via helicopter/parachute. Thye may operate in company strength or be dispersed into 5-man patrols. They are equipped with standard infantry firearms (fitted with noise suppressors), as well additional camouflage equipment and pioneer tools for constructing patrol hiding places.

Because the patrols are lightly armed, they seek to avoid direct contact with the enemy by dispersing and regrouping of by concealment. They are also equipped with long-range radios equipped for burst transmisson to avoid enemy ELINT.

The LRRPs are used to locate enemy nuclear weapons and delivery systems and then call-in air/artillery strikes. They may also conduct raids on headquarters or communications facilities or stage ambushes to capture prisoners/equipment. They may also kink up with airborne desants, in-place KGB agents or GRU intelligence troops to increase their striking power and report back information. But their primary mission is reconnaissance.

LRRPs are elite troops, their personnel receive better and more indepth training and conditioning than the average soldier.

The remaining units of the Division Recon Battalion operate roughly a day's march (35-50km) in front of the division, usually in small patrols of 2-4 scout cars and motorcycles, often reinforced by 1-2 BMPs/tanks. Patrols operate throughout the divisional sector, along the main axis of advance, on parallel routes and along the flanks.

Patrols will often move in pairs of vehicles, with one pair remaining in overwatch while the other pair moves forward and reporting back on enemy forces, terrain, road conditions and NBC contamination. Engineer squads are often attached to the patrol to recon and clear any obstacles discovered along the patrol's route. The battalion is often reinforced with a motor rifle company (and an attached platoon of tanks) from the advance guard battalion.

The Regimental Recon Company operates in a similar manner, roughly a half-day's march ahead of the regiment's main body.

On the defense, the recon patrols stay forward of the main defense line to report on the enemy axis of advance, but make no effort to engage. Screening and security duties are performed by detached motor rifle/tank companies

Unlike NATO, Soviet recon units are intended purely for scouting. THey do not have a screening/security mission. NATO units are strong, combined-arms force, able to fight their way forward for information, in strong contrast to the Soviet approach. This is reflected by Soviet recon vehicles, light, mobile and designed to cover long distances, quickly, and to depend on their speed and concealment for thier protection.

When a Soviet recon patrol discovers the enemy, it will return fire and then attempt to break contact, aided by the fire of any overwatching vehicles. It noramlly retires to the nearest cover and then report the encounter by visual signal, radio or by courier. The patrol will then attempt to infiltrate around the enemy forces and resume its mission. It only engges the enemy if they also appear to be a recon patrol of the if Soviets have the advantage.

[dragoon500ly]

Over the life of this thread, we have discussed modern military firepower, I thought it would be intresting to highlight what tankers would have faced in WWII.

The 2 pounder: In the early years of the war, this was the standard cannon armament for much of the British armor force. It fired AP and APHV ammunition. APHV entered service in the latter years of the war,
at 250m, it could penetrate 64mm of homogeneous armor,
at 500m: 57mm,
at 750m: 51mm
at 1,000m: 45mm.

AP was used during the early years,
at 250m it could penetrate 58mm,
at 500m: 52mm,
750m: 46mm
at 1,000m: 40mm.

The 6 pounder entered service at the hight of the North Africa fighting, its main round was the APCBC round, against homogeneous armor,
at 500m, it could penetrate 81mm,
at 1,000m: 74mm,
at 1,500m: 63mm
at 2,000m:56mm.

During this period the Germans started introducing face-hardened armor on their MkIIIs and MkIVs, the 6pdr at
500m, could penetrate 76mm of this armor,
at 1,000m: 74mm,
at 1,500m: 68mm
at 2,000m: 63mm

The 37mm M6 was introduced on the Stuart light tank just before the intorduction of the 6pdr. Its APC M51 round, against homogeneous armor,
at 500m could penetrate 53mm,
at 1,000m: 46mm,
at 1,500m: 40mm
at 2,000m: 35mm.

Against German face-hardened armor:
at 500m: 46mm,
at 1,000m: 40mm,
at 1,500m: 38mm
at 2,000m: 33mm

The early models Lee/Grants and M4 Shermans used the 75mm gun M-2. Its main antitank round was the AP M72 and the APC M61. The performance of the AP round (homogeneous/face-hardened armor):
at 500m: 60mm/58mm,
at 1,000m: 53mm/46mm,
at 1,500m: 46mm/33mm
at 2,000m: 38mm/25mm,

The APC's performance,
at 500m: 60mm/69mm;
at 1,000m: 55mm/60mm,
at 1,500m: 51mm/55mm
at 2,000m: 46mm/48mm.

The late models Lee/Grant and M-4A1 Shermans used the longer barrelled 75mm Gun M-3. It used the same AT rounds as the M-2.
AP shot at 500m: 76mm/66mm;
at 1,000m 63mm/53mm,
at 1,500m at 51mm/41mm
at 2,000m: 43mm/33mm.

APC shot,
at 500m: 66mm/74mm,
at 1,000m: 60mm/67mm,
at 1,500m: 55mm/60mm
at 2,000m: 50mm/54mm.

The 3-inch gun was mounted on the M-10 tank destroyer. It fired the AP M79, APC M62 and the HVAP M93.
AP at 500m: 109mm;
at 1,000m: 92mm,
at 1,500m: 76mm,
at 2,000m: 64mm.

The APC round,
at 500m: 93mm,
at 1,000m: 88mm,
at 1,500m: 82mm
at 2,000m: 75mm.

HVAP at 500m: 157mm,
at 1,000m: 135mm,
at 1,500m: 116mm
at 2,000: 98mm.

The 76mm gun entered service from 1943 onwards. It fired three types of rounds, the AP M79, the APC M62 and the HVAP M93 (TD use only).

The AP round
at 500m: 109mm,
at 1,000m: 92mm,
at 1,500m: 76mm
at 2,000m: 64mm.

APC
at 500m: 93mm,
at 1,000m: 88mm,
at 1,500m: 82mm
at 2,000m: 75mm.

HVAP
at 500m: 157mm,
at 1,000m: 135mm,
at 1,500m: 116mm
at 2,000m: 98mm

The Sherman Firefly mounted the 17pounder. It used the APCBC and SVDS (early form of sabot).

APCBC
at 500m: 140mm,
at 1,000m: 130mm,
at 1,500m: 120mm
at 2,000m: 111mm.

SVDS,
at 500m: 208mm,
at 1,000m: 192mm,
at 1,500m: 176m
at 2,000m: 161mm.

The final WWII tank gun was the 90mm. It fired the APC M82 and the HVAP M304.

The APC
at 500m: 120mm,
at 1,000m: 112mm,
at 1,500m: 104mm,
at 2,000m: 96mm.

The HVAP,
at 500m: 221mm,
at 1,000m: 199mm,
at 1,500m: 176mm
at 2,000m: 156mm

Sources are "Sherman", "British and American Tanks of WWII"

[dragoon500ly]

source is the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII"

2cm KwK 30 L55, as mounted on the PzKw II
100m: 20mm
500m: 14mm
1000m: 9mm

2cm FlaK30 L112.5, standard light AA gun
100m: 49mm
500m: 20mm

2.8cm sPzB41
100m: 60mm
500m: 40mm
1000m: 19mm

3.7cm Pak 35/36 L45, standard towed AT gun in the early war years
100m: 34mm
500m: 29mm
1000m: 29mm
1500m: 22mm
2000m: 19mm

3.7cm KwK34(t) L40, mounted on captured Czech Model 35 tanks
100m: 37mm
500m: 31mm
1000m: 26mm
1500m: 22mm

3.7cm KwK38(t) L47.8, mounted on captured Czech Model 38 tanks
100m: 41mm
500m: 35mm
1000m: 29mm
1500m: 24mm

4.7cmPaK(t) L43.4, captured Czech AT guns
100m: 54mm
500m: 48mm
1000m: 41mm
1500m: 35mm

5cm KwK38 L42, mounted on the early PzKw III
100m: 54mm
500m: 46mm
1000m: 36mm
1500m: 28mm
2000m: 22mm

5cm KwK39 L60, mounted on the late model PzKw III
100m: 67mm
500m: 57mm
1000m: 44mm
1500m: 34mm
2000m: 26mm

5cm PaK 38 L60, standard German towed AT gun, mid-war years
100m: 69mm
500m: 59mm
1000m: 48mm
1500m: 38mm
2000m: 29mm

7.5cm KwK37 L24, mounted on early PzKw IV
100m: 41mm
500m: 39mm
1000m: 35mm
1500m: 33mm
2000m: 30mm

7.5cm KwK40 L43, mounted on the late MkIV
100m: 98mm
500m: 91mm
1000m: 82mm
1500m: 72mm
2000m: 63mm

7.5cm KwK40 L48, mounted on StuGIII, and some of the Marder-series
100m: 106mm
500m: 96mm
1000m: 85mm
1500m: 74mm
2000m: 64mm

7.5cm KwK42 L70, mounted on the Panther
100m: 194mm
500m: 174mm
1000m: 149mm
1500m: 127mm
2000m: 106mm

7.62cm Pak36(r) L51.5, mounted on some of the Marder-series
100m: 135mm
500m: 116mm
1000m: 94mm
1500m: 75mm
2000m: 58mm

8.8cm FlaK18 & 37 L56, standard towed AA gun
100m: 127mm
500m: 117mm
1000m: 106mm
1500m: 97mm
2000m: 88mm

8.8cm KwK36 L56, mounted on the Tiger I
100m: 171mm
500m: 156mm
1000m: 138mm
1500m: 123mm
2000m: 132mm

8.8cm KwK43 L71, mounted on the King Tiger
100m: 237mm
500m: 217mm
1000m: 193mm
1500m: 171mm
2000m: 153mm

12.8cm K40 L61, mounted on the JagdTiger
100m: 201mm
500m: 176mm
1000m: 150mm
1500m: 132mm
2000m: 120mm

12.8cm Pak44 L55
100m: 187mm
500m: 178mm
1000m: 167mm
1500m: 157mm
2000m: 148mm

[dragoon500ly]

As you can see, Allied tank guns were very underpowered compared to their German counterparts. This was mostly due to the German superiority in chemicals, their propellant was several times better than Allied propellant, coupled with better gun construction, well, you can see why the German tanks were feared.

[bobcat]

LOL

Been waaaaayyyy to stupid at work!

Been digging through some of the service's more remote warehouses...and it still amazes me just what some supply officer/nco stashes in remote corners:

Two crates of 3.5-inch bazookas, Korean War issue and never been used!

A propeller from a landing craft....at Fort Hood?!

And among a stack of replacement gun tubes, two tubes for an M-60A2...glad to see some things just never, ever change!

don't you mean one crate of bazooka's? ;)

[dragoon500ly]

don't you mean one crate of bazooka's? ;)

Nope, the bazookas came two to a crate, but they didn't posess anything...

:D

[Panther Al]

Speaking of Modern and WW2 era weapons, here is a thought to ponder:


Who here would be willing to take on a Sherman Tank, be it any flavour from the second world war, against a Leopard 1?


I imagine it would be safe to say, no one.


But the funny thing is, thousands upon thousands have. At least as far as protection goes if not firepower.

When the Leopard 1 was built, a lot of folks made comment that they could have returned the Panther to production and they would be just as well off.

How little did they know.

Till the end of the production of the Leopard, the hull plates angle and thickness (as well as type of metal used) was a perfect match for the Panther AusfG. On the original Turrets, the same - albeit hull and turret top armour was slightly beefed up. Makes one think when you know that the Leo is nothing more than upgunned Panther with a facelift.


Oh.

One more thing...

The Leo 1? Not to shabby for a Porsche eh?

[dragoon500ly]

Wondered when somebody would catch that!

Here's another little gem...during the period 1938-1945, the Germans produced some 89,000 armored fighting vehicles of all types. Even in 1945, when communications and transport within Germany were almost at a standstill, the Germans were still able to produce some 5,592 AFVs (with a production goal of 23,000 AFVs by the end of the year), within less than three months. Soviet production of AFVs during the war years was some 125,000, most produced under primitive conditions following the move to the Urals. By comparsion, the US produced some 48,000 Shermans

[Panther Al]

Well, I am known as Panther Al for a reason: I know that tank inside out like you wouldn't believe. :)

As to the Leo's, both the 1 and the 2 are Porsche designs. They are perhaps one of the best armour design firms around. Though they don't advertise that fact: after all, it doesn't quite fit in with 911's and such now does it?

[ArmySGT.]

Well, I am known as Panther Al for a reason: I know that tank inside out like you wouldn't believe. :)


See there is this problem with the carburetors................ :p

[Panther Al]

Those shouldn't have been an issue: the design is sound. What was happening as the years went on, is materials. Using quality materials, all the various bits performed exactly to spec or better.

If there was any failure points, these are it:

Final Drives.

Where the Panther was designed to be 30 tons, even the designers didn't buy that. They budgeted a 50% increase by the time it hit the field. Good thing too, as they was right in that regard. However, the Final Drives was overlooked. Those was still rated for 30 tons. Now, they beefed them up, so they could (and on occasion last forever under combat conditions - crew quality was key) handle it, but it was at the *very* limit of its capabilities. And the Final Drives are tied into all sorts of mobility issues that the Panther would have at times.

At first, the engines had issues - pumps and head seals mostly - but with the P30 motor, those was no longer an issue.

The last issue was 3rd Gear. Seriously. That gear for some reason was always the first one to die, and die often.

Other than that, all the issues was all tied to substandard material quality, be it parts or what they was made out of.

[dragoon500ly]

not to mention problems with the air intakes and engine exhaust...early model Panthers would often have engine problems whenever they moved through overgrown areas, the reason, Panther A was built with no screens over the air intake fans, pine needles et al would get sucked into the engine and "tankee no goee", the crews simply welded a bucket upside down over the intakes and then punched a few dozen holes, ad hoc filter, but it worked.

The exhaust was another story, Panther A would often enjoy that "cherry red" look on its pipes, not a godd thing during those night moves...Panther G went with an armored cover and fan to reduce exhaust temps.

Still, teething problems with new equipment!

[Panther Al]

Yes and no. :)

While the exhaust pipes are a fact of life for the panther, the motor issues wasn't attributed to the A - and the chicken wire story isn't quite true either.

Unlike what you would think, the Developmental History of the Panther went thusly:

Panther Ausf D (some use the lower case d, german documents use both).
210001 - 210254 MAN
211001 - 211250 Daimler-Benz
212001 - 212130 Henschel
213001 - 213220 MNH

It was midway through the production run that the Motor (Which did have most of the issues Dragoon mentioned as well as the others) was changed from the Maybach HL210 P30 to the Maybach HL230 P30. The 230 was a much better motor overall, as long as the raw materials lived up to spec as well as the quality controls - as the war wore on both of these fell in quality.

Panther II

2 Prototypes built by MAN, one of which is in the Patton Museum.

Never entered production - but the work that was done on it influenced the A to a small degree, and the G to a large degree.

Panther Ausf A. Same hull as the D, but with a new turret. A lot of features was added during this run: in my mind its the best of the lot: High Quality Manufacturing standards, a collection of really useful production improvements, with very little wartime simplifications to make it cheaper and easier to build.

210255 - 210899 MAN
151901 - 152575 Daimler-Benz
154801 - 155630 MNH
158101 - 158150 Demag-Benrath

Panther Ausf G. Same turret as the A, but a new hull that was based largely off of the Panther II's hull. Here, there was a lot of simplifications that started to reduce, in my opinion, the qualities that make the Panther Great. But there was a few silver linings: Namely the hull shape. While it was meant to make it faster to build, it was a honest improvement overall. As well, the addition late in the run of the Mantlet Lip to prevent rounds glancing into the hull roof, and of course, the heater built into the engine compartment that solved a host of issues.

120301 - MAN
124301 - * Daimler-Benz
128301 - MNH

And Finally,

Panther Ausf F. Now, why would I add the Paper Panther? After all, it never did enter production yes?

Well... sorta.

MAN, D-B, MNH, Krupp, and Nibelungenwerk was to begin production, staggering start dates, in March of 45. None, save for D-B, actually did so. Hence the * in the above G SN list. However, even there, the F wasn't really produced either.

Whats this Panther Al you ask? They did but they didn't? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over?

The F was supposed to be built on a modified G hull, with a totally new Turret. The Turret did start production, but none was turned over to the factories since the optics for it was never started in time before the war ended. However, Daimler Benz did start to receive the plates for the hull modifications for the F, and following the Standard Practice of last in, first out (Which BTW makes for a lot of fun in IDing production data of german tanks let me tell you), they did produce F hulls in random with G hulls during the last month or so of the war. In fact, at the end of the war, there was a pic of the DB line where you can see F hulls interspaced with G hulls on the line. Daimler Benz managers say they don't know for certain if any actually was issued, but they dis believe that it was very possible that a very small number was issued to II./PzR 2 for the defence of Berlin between the dates of 20-23 April (Where the factory was located).

Also, in the Ruhr, Hulls for the F was captured while still in the welding jigs, so there is a small possibility that a handful was delivered to MAN - but they did not enter the line as far as anyone knows.

Paper Panthers!

Yes, the German Uber Alles crap that some folks go for is here. Though to be fair, there really wasn't a lot in this category for the panther, excepting the weapon carriers that was shelved in late 43 to early 44, so they don't count.

There was a number of things they was shooting for - and mostly, they wasn't too out there either. Nightvision of course, which did see the field in small numbers, as well as new optics in general.

In addition, there was some effort towards mounting the 8.8cm Kw.K 43 L/71 in a schmalturm, which in my opinion was silly: it didn't make sense to cram a larger gun in a turret designed to be even smaller.

Maybach HL234 Motor. Oh, my.. what a could have been this is. It was discovered during the development of the HL230 that if any part of the motor was a failure point it was, as Dragoon and others pointed out, the Carburettor. It was decided then though, that careful attention to the quality control standards would suffice to keep it from being an issue. To be fair, that's correct. However, they did forget there was a war on...

However, Maybach had immediately started work on a new motor just in case: the 234. With the call to keep with the 230, they cut back on the development of it till they discovered that, hey - there is a war on, and that plays hell with the supply chain, and further, maybe they aught to have a look at that old plan B. This engine could have been introduced with Panther A, and what it was capable of is outstanding. Instead of the 750 horsepower of the 230, it was rated at 900, it was designed with wartime production in mind in regards to build quality, and coupled with the inclusion of fuel injection, actually got much better gas milage. This would have given the Panther the Power to Weight Ratio equal to that of a Hellcat. Not too shabby.

[dragoon500ly]

Panther D: the initial designs were by Daimler-Benz and MAN with the turret being built by Rheinmettall-Borsig. Hitler made the decision to go with the Daimler-Benz Panthers with an initial order of 200. Hitler then backpedaled his decision and went with the MAN design, in the initaial troop trails they were so many defects uncovered that in April 1943, all issues were stopped and the Panthers that were issued were recalled for MAJOR modifications. In May 1943, the 51st and 52nd Panzerabteilungen were issued the Panther D, just in time for the Battle of Kursk. Virtually all Panther Ds went to these two independent battalion as well as the 23rd and 26th Panzer Regiments (Independent) and the panzer regiments of the Das Reich (2nd SS PzGren Div) and Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler (1st SS PzGren Division). ID features were the small TC coupula, the direct vision slot for the driver and the so-called "letterbox" hull machinegun port. Roughly 850 were built

Panther A: This was the 2nd series of production model, essentially it was D run with minor modifications. The TCs cupola received a new design (more periscopes), the running gear was strengthed. There were also over a dozen modifications to the drive train, the engine exhaust received its first cooling modification and the hull mg flap was replaced with a ball mount (retrofitted to surviving "D"s, although many "A"s kept the old flap throughout the war). The ammo-loading hatch on the left side opf the turret was deleted and the fire-control was updated. About 2,000 were produced from August 1943-May 1944.

Panther G: This was the 3rd production run and it involved some major redesign work. The hull was modified with thicker armor on the upper hull side and this was now a one-piece casting oinstead of the previous three-piece. The driver's direct vision slot was deleted and his seat was modified to allow him to raise and lower it so that he could drive with his head outside of his hatch. The pivoting hatches were replaced with hinged hatches for the driver and radio operator. Faced with a growing shortage of rubber, the "silent bloc" steel rimmed roadwheels were introduced. Yet more mods to the drive train as well as a gearbox oil cooler. The hull ammo racks were replaced with armored bins. The crew compartment was fitted with a heater system and the flame-trap exhaust muffler were fitted, eliminating the exhaust pipe problem. The turret came in for further modification, with the introduction of the "chin" mantlet which prevented hits on the lower portion of the matlet from being deflected through the thinner armor over the driver/radio operator. Some 3,126 were built in between March 1944-April 1945.

Panther F: This was supposed to be the fourth production run, but all accounts that I've seen state that no production was made and only the prototype turrets were completed. There is notation that one or two of these turrets were fitted to G hulls and used in the fighting in Berlin, but I've seen no photo evidence. The turret was called the "Schmal" (narrow) and was designed to have the smallest possible frontal area (and thicker armor). It would have the same size turret ring as the older turret. It was fitted with an optical rangefinder and it was planned that the Schmal turret could be refitted with the 88mm cannon.

Panzerbefehlswagen Panther: This was the command tank version of the Panther, 329 were converted from May 1943 to April 1945. It was designed to be as inconspicuous as possible when in action, unlike previous designs of command tanks, it retained its main armament, simply adding an additional radio for the company commander. In addition to the normal pole antenna, a second pole and a star antenna were added.

Panzerbeobachtungswagen Panther: This was the forward observor version of the Panther. Some 41 were converted. The main armament was deleted (replaced by a dummy tube) and a ball mount for the former co-axial machine gun. A rangefinder was added and a range plotting table fitted inside the turret. In addition to the normal pole antenna, a second pole and a star antenna were added.

Jagdpanther: This was a heavy tank destroyer that mounted the 88mm PaK L71 gun on a panther chassis. Production srated in January 1944-March 1945 and 392 were built. The turret was deleted and a superstructure was built up from the existing upper hull and side plates of the Panther. The drive train was modified with the installation of a heavy-duty transmission. The jagdpanther was issued to the troops in June 1944 but was never issued in large numbers until the Ardennes Offensive in December 1944. They were assigned to two panzerjagerabteilungen (the 559th and 654th), to the panzer regiments of some seven Panzer divisions, to the Guhrer Grenadier Division and to an independent Panzer brigade.

Panzer Bergegerat (Panther): The armored recovery vehicle version of the panther. Some 232 were built from June 1943 to September 1944 with 6 eing conveted from Pather A and another 107 from Panther G from September 1944 to March 1945. This was the hull of aPanther with a small superstructure built in place of the turret. it was equipped with a 40-ton capacity winch, and 1.5-ton derrick as well as a spade to stablizie the vehicle when using its derrick. Each tank regiment would have from 2-4 Bergepanthers.

Planned versions...

The Flakpanzer 341 was a Panther with its turret replaced by a new turret, mounting twin 37mm FlaK 43 antiaircraft guns. A wooden mockup of the new turret was built, but it never saw production.

Sturmpanther had the 75mm cannon replaced by the 150mm StuH 43/1. Never entered production.

Jagdpanther Starr: a modification of the Jagdpanther with the 88mm cannon being mounted on a rigid mount (similar to that used on the Hetzer tank destroyers).


Panther II: this was a 47-ton version of the Panther with heavier armor. It was delayed to to a design to co-ordinate with the Tiger II, a decision that prevented the Panther II from seeing troop service. Two prototypes were built, one, with a normal Panther turret currently being at the Patton Museum. The turret slated for use with the Panther II would have been the Schmal turret, fitted with the 88mm gun.

source is the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII"

[Panther Al]

Only a handful of A's recieved the letterbox MG port: mostly because of the last in, first out that made up german panzer production.

Steel Road Wheels was introduced: mainly as a material saving method, however, they was scarce as hens teeth as the original version of them had some major issues regarding lifespan. Improved versions was due to enter production and be installed on (in various designs) all Panzers by the end of March 45. In all the factories producing the Panther upon capture, there was still only rubber roadwheels on the line.

While some prototype turrets was produced, its pretty conclusive that none saw combat service: and thats due to there was only one set of the optics for the turret ever being made, and it never left the Ziess factory. :) Now, some of the "F" hulls (Again, a modified G hull with the ball MG mount replaced with a ball StG44 mount, sliding roof hatches, and 40mm thick roof armour.) was on line in the DB facility as well as in the early stages at the MAN facility - photo proof of this exists. MAN and DB engineers, when questioned after the war confirmed that no true F's was ever produced, though some of the hulls, as mentioned earlier, may have seen service.

There is no records of true Artillery observation Panthers being built save for a prototype: All the panthers produced by all facilities are accounted for in either issue reports, as well as acceptance documents. While it is possible some was used in the role, they would have been in all likely hood standard Panthers seconded over. The Artillery arm itself, decreed that no panthers would be used by them in order to ensure availability for the Panzer Forces.


Sources: Jentz, Spielberger, Doyle, and copies of German Documents I scored ages ago when I got bit by the panther bug. :)

[dragoon500ly]

Nothing like a good tank debate to get the day started!!!

The Heer in WWII always struck me as the best example of too many cooks, in too many kitchens, with a common goal, but taking every possible avenue to get there. Calling it utter chaos doesn't even begin to describe the situation.

Not counting a certain design from WWI, German tank design really kicks off in 1927 with the WD Schlepper 25PS (37mm SPAT) and the WD Schlepper 50PS (77mm how), these were little more than lightly armored (3mm) tracters with their weapons mounted on pedestals, both saw service with the Heer, but in very limited numbers, sources range from less than 30 to as many as 100.

In 1929 the next design was the Leichtertraktor which mounted a 37mm gun in a rotating turret, armor was light(3-6mm) and only two protypes were ever ordered. This was further developed in in 1932 some 40 were in service.

In 1930 came the Grosstraktor, this was a much larger vehicle mounting the 75mm L24 gun and was the vehicle used in Kama USSR for testing. Some 24 were built and served through the war as parade monuments.

1933 saw the Neubaufahzeug, the German entry into the multi-turreted tank race (armed with a 75mmL24, a 37mm L45 and a coax in the main turret and two secondary mg turrets). Three were built and saw service in the invasion of Norway in 1940, where one was destroyed.

These three designs were never intended as combat vehicles, but rather as test beds to give the designers, production lines and the troops some experience with tanks.

source is the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII"

[Panther Al]

Exactly!

It wasn't till Speer came in and saw the state of German Armour Development before someone with sense took a look at things and said "Whoa: Is there a reason we have 12 different hatch designs? Is there a reason we have 7 different 75mm chamberings? Why not just have one of each?" before things started getting better (The Panther G was built with commonality with the Tiger 2 in mind - not much, but some). The PaperPanzer E series was a perfect example of where Wa Pruef 6 wanted to go: everything exactly the same as much as possible.

[dragoon500ly]

The first real panzer, issued in any sort of real numbers, was the Panzerkampfwagen I. This was a “tankette” design with a 2-man crew and armed with a turret mounting two 7.92mm mgs. Initial weight, combat loaded was 5.4 tons and it had a road speed of 37-40km/h and a road range of 140-150km. Armor ranged from 13mm to 6mm. It was produced in fourteen versions

Introduced in 1934 was the Panzerkampfwagen I A ohne Aufbau, this was a turretless version set up for driver training. 15 were built in between February and April 1934.

Introduced in 1934, the Panzerkampfwagen IA was the first mass-produced German tank. 816 were built between July 1934 and June 1936. It saw combat service in Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland and North Africa. It was plagued by engine-cooling problems that resulted in at least three different fixes.

The PzKpfw IB was introduced in 1935 and featured a longer chassis (weight going up to 5.8 tons) and a re-designed rear deck to correct the overheating problems of the IA. 675 were built between August 1935 and June 1937. It saw combat service in Poland, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland and North Africa.

PzKpfw IB ohne Aufbau was a maintenance vehicle produced from June 1936 to November 1938, with some 164 being built. The turret and upper supers truce was removed and replaced with a simple structure. It was issued with 2 per panzer company until 1941 when it was too small to serve as a recovery vehicle, it was then reconfigured as a driver training vehicle.

Kleine Panzerbefehehlswagen was a IB with the turret removed and replaced with a taller superstructure. Weight was increased to 5.9 tons and it sported a 3-man crew. Armament was a single mg in a ball mount. This was a headquarters vehicle for the company commander and it served in this role into early 1941. It was withdrawn from the companies at this time and served until late 1942 with battalion and higher headquarters.

The Munitionsschlepper auf Panzerkampfwagen IA was a tracked ammunition carrier that was converted from 51 IA chassis in September 1939. It served in the Poland and Fracne campaigns.

15cm sIG33(Sf) auf Panzerkampfwagen IB were 38 converted IB hulls (February 1940), the turret was removed and a firing platform, protected by armor shields on three sides. Armament was the standard sIG33 150mm infantry support howitzer (on its normal field carriage). Intended to support the panzergrenadiers as a direct fire weapon, these served with Panzer Divisions 1-6 in Belgium, Holland and France. It remained in service at least through 1943 with Panzer Division 5 in Russia. Weight went up to 8.5 tons and it had a 4-man crew.

The Panzerkampfwagen IC was a prototype for an airborne recon vehicle. It replaced the old Camden-Loyld system with overlapping road wheels and a new track design. Combat weight was 8 tons, road sped was 79km/h and road range was 300km. Armament was changed to a 13mm mg and a co-axial 7.92mm mg. 40 were built between July and December 1942. Two saw service in Russia with Panzer Division 1, the remaining 38 with the LVIII Panzer Reserve Corps.

The 4.7cm PaK(t)(SF) auf Panzerkampfwagen I B was another conversion of the IB, the turret was removed and replaced with a pedestal mount for a47mm L43.4mm antitank gun (former Czech Army). Crew was increased to 3 men and the combat weight went up to 6.4 tons. It served in Belgium, France and North Africa until being phased out in 1943.

The last version was the PzKpfw IF was a major redesign of the vehicle. Combat weight went up to 21 tons, road speed went down to 25km/h. Armor protection ranged from 80mm to 25mm. 30 were built between April and December 1942. Like the IC, it had overlapping road wheels and a wider track. Eight saw service with Panzer Division 1 in Russia.

The PzKpfw Is helped train the Panzertruppen and served well in the earlier years of the war until 1942, most of these vehicles were scrapped or converted into Munitionsschlepper auf Panzerkampfwagen 1a und 1b. A divisional-level rebuild that stripped the turret and added a large steel box to carrier supplies. Most of these conversions served on the Eastern Front for the rest of the war.

The early German propganda films made a lot of noise about the “deadly effect” of the PzKpfw I, reality was very different. The Heer realized that the tankette design was never anything more than a stop gap doomed to support the infantry, or at most, serving in a recon role. An examination of the tanks assignments to oanzer Group Kleist (the panzer group during the French 1940 campaign) illustrate this, of the five panzer divisions present, three had strengths of 30 PzKpfw Is each, two had strengths of only 10 each. The primary strength of the 1940 campaign was the gun armed PzKpfw II.

source is the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII"

[dragoon500ly]

Towards the end of the Cold War, those fun-loving guys at FMC Corporation decided to explore the possibilites of the Bradley, three versions actually reached prototype stage:

The Combat Vehicle Armament System Technology (CVAST) redesigned the turret of the Brad and mounted an Aeries 35mm Talon cannon. First tested in 1984, the new turret was not placed in production since it was felt that the larger caliber gun was not needed.

An offshoot of CVAST was a plan to take advantage of recent advances in polymer composites and ceramic armor witht he intent of replacing much of the Brad's existing armor. This new armor package would have resulted in a substantial weight reduction, enhanced crew survival, reduced manufacturing cost, and decreases in maintenance due to less corrosion and metal fatigue. It was killed by Congress due to budget concerns.

As the Army announced the retire of the M-551 Sheridan and the requirements of the Armored Gun System, FMC submitted a light tank based on the Bradley and M113 components. The Close Combat Vehicle, Light (CCVL) used a three man-crew (loader was replaced by an autoloader). It was armed with the M-68 105mm Cannon (fitted with a multi-baffle muzzle brake) and used laminated armor similar to that fitted to the Bradley A@. The CCVL could withstand hits of up to 30mm over a 60 degree froontal arc, wiits flanks and rear protected against HMG. two sixteen-barreled smoke grenade launchers were mounted on either side of the turret. Secondary armament consisted of a M-240C 7.62mm machine gun. Combat weight was 20 tons and it was fitted witha 575hp Detroit Diesel Allison that gave the CCVL a top speed of 45mph and a combat range of 300 miles. Of real intrest was its ability to be loaded into a C-130 transport and delviered via the Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES). This is the vehicle that placed second, losing to the M-8.

The final variant, and the one that really caught a lot of intrest is teh M-987 Fighting Vehicle System (FVS). This is the Chassis of the M-993 MLRS without the launchers and replaced with a payload area that could accept a wide variety of "pods", six versions were initially planned:

M-993 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS)

M-987 Forward Area Armored Logistics System (FAALS): a armored box (with crane) that allowed the protected transport of fuel, ammunition or other necessary supples to front line troops. Could be fitted with a weapons station for a M-2HB.

M-987 Armored Maintenance Vehicle (AMV): This pod allowed the transport of mechanics, tools and spare parts in apod, similar in shape to the FAALS. Fitted witha 7.5-ton capacity crane at the rear, it acould change power packs and gun tubes. This would save time in repairing and returning to sevice damaged vehicles as the AMV would be able to repair vehicles at the battalion level, and not have to tow such vehicles back to rear areas. Armed with a M-2HB and smoke grenade launchers.

M-987 Electronic Fighting Vehicle System (EFVS): This pod was designed for commanders and carried a wide vareity fo communications packages, electronic components and computers. Was also fitted with a remotely activated telescoping mast with antenna that reaches up to 70 feet.

M-987 Firefighter: This version uses a Hughes phased array surveillance radar for counterbattery locatiing of enemy artillery, mortar and rockets.

M-987 Long Range Anti-Tank Program (LRAT): This pod uses a telescoping 50 foot mast linked to a Martin Marietta Target Acquisition and Designation System. It was intended to act as a "forward controller" for Hellfire/ADATS missiles.

Sourcesinclude promo flyers from FMC as well as personnel observation.

[Webstral]

An offshoot of CVAST was a plan to take advantage of recent advances in polymer composites and ceramic armor witht he intent of replacing much of the Brad's existing armor. This new armor package would have resulted in a substantial weight reduction, enhanced crew survival, reduced manufacturing cost, and decreases in maintenance due to less corrosion and metal fatigue. It was killed by Congress due to budget concerns.

In other words, “The people who paid for me to get here are concerned that the proposed changes will mean less money in their pockets. Sorry, Joe. My job security is more important than your life.”

[dragoon500ly]

LOL!

Congressmen....during wartime, the plan is to drop them into enemy territory to cause havoc and force the enemy to surrender.

Of course this could be considered to be "Crimes Against Humanity"....

[pmulcahy11b]

LOL!

Congressmen....during wartime, the plan is to drop them into enemy territory to cause havoc and force the enemy to surrender.

Of course this could be considered to be "Crimes Against Humanity"....

Don't forget the lawyers! And the HMO executives, who will be in every aid station and field hospital, telling you whether or not the care you're giving to each soldier is covered by their policy.

[dragoon500ly]

Don't forget the lawyers! And the HMO executives, who will be in every aid station and field hospital, telling you whether or not the care you're giving to each soldier is covered by their policy.

Kinda transends Crimes against Humanity and goes into the realm of Crimes Against Everything...