New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)

[McG]

... a redesigned 152mm gun, using ammo fitted with conventional cases instead of combustible and do away with the screw breech.

semi-combustible cases would probably be the way to go today.

A Hetzer (or Stug) would be a useful addition to the 10% of the force that is Heavy.

I think a heavy force would be better suited with more tanks or missile systems than with WWII tank destroyers and assault guns.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Lets just say I'm a SME on Armd doctrine, and the tools are there for any CC to engage further out, kept at the unit IG level. It's not hard, nor is it rocket science.

There are corrections and techniques available using onboard GLI  and using estimated technique then to allow for semi-indirect and are taught on the basic Leo gunner course, for both C2 and Leo2.

On the subject of ADATS, if it was the be all, end all platform for both air and anti-tank....why was it not adopted by every major NATO ally? Why did we drop it? I know every time (5 launches by three different CFRs) I saw an attempt to fire a missile, it didn't or would completely miss the intended target.

And I'm and EO/FCS  Tech with 8 years fixing tanks at the strats and 6 years teaching LeoC1/C2 Maint at the school....since we exchanging resumes :-/

And while the tools are there and taught doesn't mean they are effective.  The Cougar had a QFC as well, that was never used as anything but a foot step :-/  Never in my 8 years with the strats did I ever see rounds wasted practicing semi-indirect/indirect fire on a gun camp.  It is fundamentally better to let the artillery handle indirect Fire missions, and let the tanks destroy the enemy with firepower and violence :/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Hetzer II would be a dedicated vehicle for airborne troops, worrying about weight and size is nowhere near as important for regular deployments. Specializing vehicles for the airborne assault role is worthwhile and may need to have a number of different vehicles to draw upon depending on the operations. Of course this is all pie in the sky and we can also pretend that we have the aircraft to support such. I don't see a need in such an operation for more than 4-6 assault guns, a battery of mobile mortars and perhaps 4-6 autocannon armed vehicles. Throw in 6 CP's, supply vehicles, you are still looking at roughly 12 lifts of a C130J or C-17 just for the vehicles and assorted bits. Not sure how many lifts are required to drop a battalion of Paratroops.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The Hetzer II would be a dedicated vehicle for airborne troops, worrying about weight and size is nowhere near as important for regular deployments. Specializing vehicles for the airborne assault role is worthwhile and may need to have a number of different vehicles to draw upon depending on the operations. Of course this is all pie in the sky and we can also pretend that we have the aircraft to support such. I don't see a need in such an operation for more than 4-6 assault guns, a battery of mobile mortars and perhaps 4-6 autocannon armed vehicles. Throw in 6 CP's, supply vehicles, you are still looking at roughly 12 lifts of a C130J or C-17 just for the vehicles and assorted bits. Not sure how many lifts are required to drop a battalion of Paratroops.

'They' have been working for years to design a suitable air portable/ airborne tank e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Scorpion

I recall that one of the problems during Gulf War 1 was that it took a ridiculously long period of time to transport M1s due to their size and weight. I think 1 x C5 can only move 1 x M1. One option, of course, is to have agreements with countries (or invade and occupy them  ;D) near the usual trouble spots and keep your heavy armour there. There are obvious political and 'blood and treasure' disadvantages to that option though.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And I'm and EO/FCS  Tech with 8 years fixing tanks at the strats and 6 years teaching LeoC1/C2 Maint at the school....since we exchanging resumes :-/

And while the tools are there and taught doesn't mean they are effective.  The Cougar had a QFC as well, that was never used as anything but a foot step :-/  Never in my 8 years with the strats did I ever see rounds wasted practicing semi-indirect/indirect fire on a gun camp.  It is fundamentally better to let the artillery handle indirect Fire missions, and let the tanks destroy the enemy with firepower and violence :/

Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)

 

[a_majoor]

Well, we already have the BV 206 and C-17's (and C-130's), so emptying out the rear half and fitting a pedestal for a DF weapon or a baseplate for a mortar (using the formula upthread then go 6-6-6 with 4 being gun, missile or mortar armed vehicles and 2 each for the HQ/CQ roles) provides the air mobility, platforms and firepower, although sacrificing the protection. (relpacing the BV-206 with the Bronco boosts the protection a bit).

Since the BV 206 or Bronco can be slung under a Chinook, operational and tactical air mobility is possible as well.

Very few changes actually have to be made to our current force structure and holdings to do this (dust off the TOW launchers and bring the 81mm Mortars back from the artillery for heavy DF and IF tasks, and use .50 HMG's or C-16's as the light DF gun).

This is actually doable (for a change)

 

[Old EO Tech]

Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)

I should have specified I was more talking about tank ranges, but then isn't every fire mission with a Cougar "indirect fire" with it's low velocity 76?    Even when the sights are used  ;D

I think the last Cougar range I was on was a firepower demo in 97 in Bosnia....when Cougar's were declared DFV's and operationally sent to the Balkans....which is another topic  :nod:

 

[George Wallace]

I should have specified I was more talking about tank ranges, but then isn't every fire mission with a Cougar "indirect fire" with it's low velocity 76?    Even when the sights are used  ;D

I think the last Cougar range I was on was a firepower demo in 97 in Bosnia....when Cougar's were declared DFV's and operationally sent to the Balkans....which is another topic  :nod:

You experiences may vastly differ from others.  We used the Gun Clinometers on ranges in Germany when firing the Leopard 1 C1.  Was it done often?  No.  Was it done at the School in Gagetown?  Yes.  It is a backup tool in the box, that is used very infrequently.  Just because your experience did not see it, does not mean that it was never done.

 

[Franko]

Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)

Agreed RG.

Semi indirect was practiced on Leo C1 and C2 here in Gagetown on a regular basis. Advanced Gunnery did indirect every course until recently. Cougar gunnery was the same.

EO Tech - You obviously weren't in Ft Bliss when we did semi-indirect shoots in 2008. I'd say the 500+ rounds of SH and HESH that were fired were far from wasted.

Just because you know to fix them, doesn't mean you know tank doctrine. Saying that the QFC was nothing more than a footstep speaks volumes.

Regards

 

[Old EO Tech]

Agreed RG.

Semi indirect was practiced on Leo C1 and C2 here in Gagetown on a regular basis. Advanced Gunnery did indirect every course until recently. Cougar gunnery was the same.

EO Tech - You obviously weren't in Ft Bliss when we did semi-indirect shoots in 2008. I'd say the 500+ rounds of SH and HESH that were fired were far from wasted.

Just because you know to fix them, doesn't mean you know tank doctrine. Saying that the QFC was nothing more than a footstep speaks volumes.

Regards

No I would have been in Afghanistan then enjoying the sun in FOB Frontenac :-/  But no in my time with the Strats I never saw that done.  I never said it was not taught, nor did I say I was an expert in tank doctrine, but I am an expert at the capabilities of the equipment in a tank.  And I can say for a fact that tanks are not designed to be an accurate indirect fire instrument.  And I use the term "accurate"  in reference to what is an accurate system, the Artillery howitzer.  I could dig up all the specs on all the indirect FCS we are discussing.  But I think that would be redundant, and we can just agree to disagree  :-\

 

[Fishbone Jones]

..........because that's easier than trying to pretend three old tankers don't know their gunnery

 

[Old EO Tech]

..........because that's easier than trying to pretend three old tankers don't know their gunnery

Also something I was not implying 

 

[a_majoor]

Before this devolves into a bunfight, we are speaking about hypothetical future capabilities here.

For accurate long range and semi indirect tank shooting, there are currently through tube missiles like LAHAT and various Russian offerings for their 125mm canons. The Korean Army has a guided top attack round for their K2 tank:

The KSTAM (Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition) is a fire-and-forget, top-attack anti-tank munition with an effective operating range of 2–8 km, developed specifically for use with the K2. It is launched as a kinetic energy projectile, fired from the main gun in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving onboard millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets. When a target is acquired, an explosively formed penetrator is fired from a top-down position, to exploit the weaker top armor of tanks. Target acquisition can also be directed manually by the tank crew via a remote-link. These characteristics allow the launch vehicle to remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy, or provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

And the US Army spent a lot of time and energy pioneering these techniques (Through Tube Missiles were invented in the 1960's for the Sheriden and M60A2 tanks, and TERM [Tank Extended Range Munition] was developed through the 1980's), although never widely adopted. There is a possibility of the US either redeveloping these sorts of rounds for themselves, or purchasing them from allies like Israel or Korea.

These sorts of munitions will become more common and cheaper as time progresses, and I can see Tanks or AFV's carrying rounds of this type in the future to provide more options for the crew commander and the combat team commander (with some sort of battlefield networking there is the possibility of getting every tank into the fight even if they cannot see the targets with their own sights usig these sorts of rounds).

For a hypothetical Hetzer II with a 105mm howitzer, the primary emphasis will be on HE or HESH to destroy hardened targets like bunkers and light AFV's, but a few smart rounds could add another arrow to the quivver if needed. A "Universal" platform might not have a cannon, but STRIX 120mm mortar rounds or top attack missiles like the TOW 2, Bofers BILL, SPIKE or Javelin ATGM (among others) provide accurate IF capability vs hard targets, and in the case of a mortar, the 120mm warhead will do a lot of damage to other targets as well. If the "Universal" platform includes a light tank (like the CV90120), then smart rounds increase the utility and survivability of these vehicles.

So long range indirect fire capabilities not only exist now, but can be markedly enhanced with smart ammunition.

 

[Ostrozac]

Creating a weapon that can kill things at long range has never been a problem. The choke point lately has been finding the target. The Russian 10km range tank launched weapons are radio guided, which means they are limited by line of sight, and for practical purposes didn't really outrange TOW 2 -- because it was hard enough to find 4km of line of sight on any normal battlefield.

The world isn't a pool table, and your enemies will try to hide. We have always said that time spent in recce is seldom wasted, but that extends to the fact that resources spent in ISTAR are seldom wasted. If you can't find the enemy, then all the long range weapons in the world are useless to you. Discussions about future weapons have to include discussions about future sensors. And in my experience, developing long range sensors seems to be often overlooked. The JUSTAS program has been ongoing for 13 years, but still hasn't delivered a UAV or a sensor.

 

[Franko]

Also, with the missile system for the T72/ 80, once the gun tube has been rigged to fire the missile, it can't fire a normal round immediately after. Kinda defeating the purpose.

 

[a_majoor]

LAHAT is laser guided, and can be used to its 13 km range with a forward observer painting the target (another tank, an infantry or artillery observer or even a helicopter scout).

The Korean smart round has multiple sensors on board, as well as a data link to the crew who can manually engage a NLOS target. TERM, as envisioned in the 1980's, was also a fire and forget top attack round but (AFAIK) without the manual link.

Spike is a FOG-M weapon, which transmits real time video to the operator through the fiber optic link and can be flown directly into the target. Other FOG-M missiles are in development.

And of course there are dozens of UAVs of all sizes and shapes that can be deployed over the battelfield to provide extra "eyes on", and I have also seen rounds as small as 40mm grenades that carry cameras and allow the local commander to pop an eye in the sky to take a look.

I suspect war in the future will resemble a deadly game of "hide and seek" where exposing yourself will likely draw fire and tactics may split between long range "fishing expeditions" and short range ambushes with high volumes of fire.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Gun-armed tank destroyers were a way to get a bigger gun and more armour on a chassis than would be possible if the vehicle had a turret. They were also a little easier to manufacture without a turret. They made sense for Germany in World War 2, but I don't think that they have a role today. Missile-armed vehicles can provide anti-tank capability.

I do believe that the Canadian Army does have a serious gap with respect to anti-tank capability. While the Leopards are great at killing tanks, if they are the only systems that can do that then they will get penny-packeted across a battle group. I have seen this on several virtual and real exercises over the past four years.  On a Capability Development Experiment that I participated in, for example, this led to the defeat in detail of a combat team as our tanks were spread out to protect infantry companies while the numerically equal enemy tanks were concentrated (France 1940).

It is a shame that we divested the LAV TUA. Calling on coalition resources can work for certain things (attack helos, CAS etc), but an infantry battalion needs dedicated anti-tank assets if it is going to relevant on a modern conventional battlefield.

If we don't think that we will ever face tanks (or even the threat of tanks in the hands of a local militia or an armoured threat across a border) then why have our exercises been so focused on "near peer" adversaries?

 

[vonGarvin]

It is a shame that we divested the LAV TUA. Calling on coalition resources can work for certain things (attack helos, CAS etc), but an infantry battalion needs dedicated anti-tank assets if it is going to relevant on a modern conventional battlefield.

Not just the TUA, but the hand-held AT weapons as well.  The 84mm and 66mm stuff we have now just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know, why don't we form a special group in each infantry unit and we can call them the "Heavy weapons Platoon" or the "Anti-tank platoon" We can use all the cool power point words to describe them; "force multiplier, user centric, dynamic and responsive" to name a few. 

 

[Kirkhill]

I know, why don't we form a special group in each infantry unit and we can call them the "Heavy weapons Platoon" or the "Anti-tank platoon" We can use all the cool power point words to describe them; "force multiplier, user centric, dynamic and responsive" to name a few.

That idea is so good you should do it twice and create BOTH a Heavy Weapons (MG) Platoon and an Anti-Tank Platoon.  And in their spare time they can be common or garden riflemen.