Fiddle's Green

[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Oct 44 assault on Leyte Island, the 1st Cav took part in the drive that split the island in half and on 30 Dec 44, was withdrawn to prepare for the invasion of Luzon.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 After the liberation of the city, the 1st Cav took part in clearing operations until 12 Mar 45 when it was withdrawn for rehabilitation and training for its next operation, the invasion of Japan.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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

http://gizmodo.com/5837511/video-dem...ity-technology

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Webstral

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by 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....

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

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]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

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.