The Armored Vehicle Thread

Not when losing a single soldier can be a political clusterfuck.

Besides the terrorists and militants have been bitching about how annoying it was to shoot down a drone because there was no dead pilot or hostage to make propaganda over, just a RC Plane the Pentagon would quickly replace.

At least with certain AFV's you can reasonably expect them to last more than 15 minutes and be resilient to certain things.

If your political resolve is so fragile that one KIA is grounds for immediate quagmire and pullout, what the fuck are you doing there in the first place?

Tom: Again no you can't. The same weapons that can defeat the drones can defeat the IFV's. Your applying a non-existent quality there. Here is a little secret. It is a lot easier and cheaper to armor up those drones then it is the manned IFV's because they don't need to cover the same internal space. You were part of that discussion not that many pages back. You can easily put the same kind of resistance for less cost and weight then manned vehicles.

Plus, any RPG fired at the UGV is an RPG that can't be fired at a manned vehicle. While they're exactly hard to come by, this means you can use the UG Vs as pickets for a force of vehicles, drawing fire and flushing out enemy forces that would otherwise engage the manned vehicles.

And if they don't engage the UG Vs? Then when they engage the manned vehicles, they'll have the UG Vs hammering them with additional firepower the manned vehicles wouldn't have had available otherwise anyways.

Then it sounds more and more like Armata even the IFV version is on the right track. Good survivability in terms of armor against smaller threats, APS and ERA for large stuff, not that heavy.

Hasn't the already forgotten lesson of Iraq been the lighter the footprint you leave in an area the less likely you are to succeed?

Armata heavy IFV is as heavy as a tank and all the logistical considerations that implies. Which is the same for all the heavy IFV's built off of tank chasis. It has also been repeatedly demonstrated even back woods insurgents can knock out even heavily protected tanks.

Yeah, 48 tons loaded. As in just under three quarters of the weight of an Abrams. Both for the IFV and the MBT. It has significantly improved survivability compared to the T-90 and as we're seeing in Syria, the T-90 ain't the fragile Soviet made shit we saw in Iraq in 91 and 03.

It replaces an entire suite of vehicles all with differing logistical needs and weights. If we had half a brain we'd be looking along the same route but nope, brass need to suck contractor dick and are stuck in ultraconservative ways unaware that the 1980s and 1990s were decades ago.

An Armata IFV can deploy a full squad of troops that can take and hold ground no matter the conditions. Those troops can also ingratiate themselves with the locals and build some effort to turning the folks to their side. A UGV can do none of that and as we've seen enough controversy over drone strikes from the air, guess how politically palatable a "Terminator" robot would be under the control of the CIA or GRU or MI 6? We both know the UGV will not become the realm of the regular army. It'll go black and into those very situations just as UAV's did before them.

If they know what they're doing and/or are supplied by the fucking CIA and/or ISI.

"no matter the conditions"? Really?

UGV's don't work very well after an EMP. Infantry on the other hand can just grumble that their red dots have gone dark.

Tom: It is still tank weight your not getting away from that at all. It is also as bulky as the full sized tank. We have no idea if it has actual improved survivability at all. It is using a lot of the same exact type of protection systems as the T-90. That is heavily reliant on ERA and if loaded APS which doesn't stop them from being destroyed by IED's or the types of ambushes used by Hezbollah and the Chechen rebels who by the way knocked out fully kitted out Russian tanks using older RPG-7's and AT rounds.

It still has the exact same logistical concerns of tank plus whatever alternate equipment is has plus the crew and passengers. It isn't replacing anything only shifting around and logistics covers things like transporting tanks.

The ability to take and hold ground is highly variable your statement is just yet more fact free exaggeration of a capability of a vehicle that has never seen combat. Oh and UGV's can take and hold ground it is the air born craft that can't. Considering all you need to take and hold ground is have a physical presence in said ground UGV's can take and hold ground something vehicles in general have been doing for over a century as a component of warfare. Not exactly a complex consideration there.

No it doesn't require CIA backing at all. Insurgents using nothing more then Gen 1 and Gen 2 RPG-7 rounds have knocked out modern tanks protected by ERA. They used this amazingly simple tactic. One guy firing shortly after the other at the same spot. Yes Tom it is that easy. Gen 3 shots and the Tandem from a cheap ass RPG-7 are also available and can do the same thing. Also IED's have wrecked numerous tanks and even vehicles built to resist IED attacks have been destroyed by IED's. None of that with black market or government sponsored ATGM's at all.

Drones are already part of regular army Tom and would you look at that. All major military bodies of the world are all making armed UGV's. My word that might be a detail to note. I mean it isn't like this a trend that has been in place since WWII or anything...oh wait.

How about more facts and attention to detail Tom and less Sparky levels of exaggeration.

Regarding the EMP, wouldn't the Armata be equally fucked, leaving its squad stranded in BFE Indian Country?

I would assume it is basically hardened as is most military equipment to begin with. It also depends on how strong the EMP is.

^^ In theory yes, but that's the advantage the Armata IFV has. The infantry can take over from there. After an EMP, a UGV force becomes completely useless. If there's no infantry to take over, you lose the battle.

And? There's almost no such thing as a military vehicle these days that ISN'T bulky and gigantic as fuck compared to civvie stuff.

A fully automated turret means it will. Because a hit to the turret most likely means fuck all except a down gun. No human casualties. (Unless the attack comes from up top, in which case chances of survival do go down...)

And? Abrams is increasingly reliant on APS and ERA and it's 20 tons heavier. We both saw that Saudi Abrams get burned up in Yemen by the Kornet, an ERA package would have helped them but they didn't have it.

We both also saw that T-90 take a TOW to the face and end up in need of repairs but not a flaming wreck. That ERA saved that commander's arse unlike his Saudi Abrams counterpart.

There's increasing evidence that there's no such thing as a ground vehicle able to withstand extremely powerful IED's and mines. If a UGV hits a mine and is surrounded by infantry, a sufficiently powerful one both destroys the UGV and inflicts human casualties. If you're operating solely UGV's, that makes it even easier, what you don't destroy with IED's you take out with basic rockets.

Who were also proficient Soviet soldiers in their previous careers. A lot of Chechen rebels in the initial foray were ex-Soviet Armed Forces. A hell of a lot better combatant than your average Timmy Taliban. They knew where and how to take out their own shit.

Yet. No UGV has seen combat yet either.

UGV's need a constant supply of fuel, batteries and spare parts. Infantry can scavenge ammo and food off the terrain if the situation is that fucked up, UGV's have no such ability. (Then again, neither do AFV's of any stripe. Score +1 for human infantry. )

Citation Needed. I want to see an AAR where an Abrams or Chally or T-90 suffered a cato kill from RPG-7s. I know all about that T-72A in Aleppo that blew sky high. And I know there have been mobility kills of Abrams and Challys from RPG-7s.

edited 16th Jun '16 7:19:37 PM by MajorTom

After the EMP the troops disembark and take over to do... what, exactly? They're far enough away from their base that they needed to drive, and in a bad enough neighborhood that they needed armor plating and autocannons. They're gonna learn that the Colt M4 is also impervious to EMP.

Tom:

Again Tom EMP hardening can protect modern electronic systems let me know when you have proof otherwise. You also seem to be laboring under the notion that these vehicles are running around their lonesome instead of filling in the fire support role alongside infantry to being with. Something you would have noted if you had actually bothered to pay attention to the articles and general details of UGV's development and adoption in the first place. Oh no I lost 2 million UGV' you lost 3.5 million manned vehicle and maybe some crew as well. Who comes out on top of that again? Oh yeah the guys who can afford to field more vehicles and sustain more causalities to them because of it.

There are lots of vehicles that are not only not tank weight but not tank bulk, again Tom you should know better then that.

A fully automated turret is not present on the T-14. It has a RWS turret that is it requires a man in the loop and no that does not mean improved survivability at all. Tanks take hits to various weak points all the time and even a turret hit can still injure and kill crew. It would depend on what hit it and where. Again there is nothing to say what kind of survivability the tank will have and we likely won't know for years to come before the first ones start taking hits.

The Abrams is a full blown MBT weight is expected and part of that weight is because it has more crew and internal space to cover with armor and larger overall frame and body. This has been covered this numerous times before. We already noted numerous US tanks have never brewed up catastrophically like that. We covered that in detail and pointed out the fact the Arab use of tanks almost always tends to be sloppy including doing dangerous things like leaving loose rounds in the cabin for improved reload speed. They do that because they use them as support guns or even adhoc mobile artillery. Why they still do this is beyond me as it still doesn't work out all that well.

We also saw T-90's getting hit so badly they needed to be hauled away to a full blown depot and one that clearly had something burning inside from smoke pouring out of the interior and no crew getting out. Give you guess what happened there. The T-90 Autoloader makes it almost impossible to have loose rounds kicking around to improve loading which is more an argument in favor of autoloaders then anything else.

The power and effect of IED's and even cheap AT rockets is a very good reason to use UGV's instead of larger more expensive crewed vehicles. It is a lot better to lose an unmanned UGV to an IED then a vehicle full of crew and passengers. Those same IED's can and have wiped out entire vehicles full of passengers and crew at a go. It wouldn't matter if they were in or out of the vehicle. That kind of blast pretty much kills everyone regardless. Losing crew to an IED has much more significant impact because you not only have to repair and/or replace the vehicle you have to replace dead and injured crew. If all your replacing is a comparatively cheaper vehicle but still have your crew tucked away safely you lose a lot less. Even better the crew that were controlling the vehicle can gain experience and knowledge instead of having it turned to mush in their skulls by an IED blast or destruction of their vehicle around their ears.

Only some of the Chechen's were soldiers the vast majority of the Chechen rebels were common insurgents. Which by the way doesn't stop other insurgents from learning to fight from the former soldiers. In case you missed it they have had no trouble in adapting munitions, tactics, and timing to better combat heavier vehicles they lack. If anything the insurgents around the world are masters at finding unusual solutions to combating armor. If one thing stops working they try different things until something works and sometimes they are some seriously impressive kludges.

UGV's have been fielded by militaries there Tom. Only armed UGV's have not been used in active combat that anyone knows of and still doesn't undermine the point that vehicles sans infantry can take and hold ground. Infantry do not have a smaller foot print if anything they have a bigger one. They need food, water, medical care, clothes, sleep, places to defecate, vehicles to cover distance quickly, and regular supplies of ammo. They have the exact same limitations in general but a larger array of needs.

Hezbollah knocked out Merkava 3's which are parity MBT's with ERA using that technique and it wasn't even a new tactic but something right out of guerilla fighter hand book for fighting tanks in urban terrain and from the old Soviet AT operations in urban terrain. Something widely available to the point you can find it off the net if you want. We have talked about it in this thread and the Sci-Fi weapons thread on more then one occasion. The insurgents are well known for having several people with an RPG-7 fire at the same vehicle aiming at the same spot hoping to get something through and do damage. It not only increases odds of a hit but the odds of a hit doing something meaningful other then scaring the crap out of the crew. They even use it against targets that are not tanks because it works for pretty much all targets. That these tactics are in use is common knowledge and public record.

edited 20th Jun '16 5:26:17 PM by TuefelHundenIV

From Eurosatory 2016 Scroll down and you can see Rheinmettall's Tank Tech Demonstrator. They show the side mounted ADS and that blanket around the tank and seen in at least one other picture is for reducing IR and Radar signature as well as working as generic camouflage.

I've been reading and trying to see how the ADS works but all I could read is how it uses focused direct energy to intercept projectiles and they use panels or bars to fire the beam.

From what I've gathered from the videos, that Direct Energy is a very precise explosive charge that focuses the blast into a single narrow point to intercept the projectile.

The issue with the ADS is how each plate is single use only and for full coverage you'd need to cover every surface of the vehicle with those plates, which means certain spots can be under protected like the top of the turret and can be depleted by strikes at the same spot rather quickly.

It pretty much acts like a smarter ERA that avoids the whole need to hit the armor for it to work and apparently it is lighter than applique and ERA armor. However is lefts a bit to be desired when it comes to overall protection when compared to Arena or Trophy.

Why don't they just use Trophy? I'm sure IMI would happily sell them it for a reasonable amount of money.

They might have a way to reload but it is hard to tell. If it is a variant of AMAP-ADS everything else from the US tests of the system says it operates to the contrary. They tested an IFV equipped with it against multiple attack angles including from above and multiple rapid attacks at short ranges of 15m. It supposedly passed all the US tests without issue. It wouldn't be the first system to pass the US tests either. They apparently have a few different models for mounting.

It doesn't look like it has the Trophy trainable APS that can reload itself after every shot though.

I wonder what's the catch with AMAP-ADS? Lack of electrical power on the vehicles, or false target rate, or something similar? Because it sounds like a very effective system, assuming that it works correctly in field conditions.

It is likely a limited refire ability. From what I can find if one charge can't cover an adjacent charge could possibly. Depending on the mounting that could be multiple charges for a given area on a given side. It seems to be pretty similar to Iron Curtain.

Found something for you tread heads Tam especially may find this of interest.

Rheinmetall's L51/130mm gun. Not a whole lot on it other then noting it is in internal testing, company boast of improvement over previous system and a note that the gun with breach and recoil mechanism sans mounting is about 4.5 US Tons. They will be making some new ammo for it based off of 120mm ammo and the gun is a joint German/French project to upgrade future tanks. For the curious the complete 120mm on the Abrams is about 3.6tons with all those parts and the mounting. The German L55/120mm is about 3.9 tons with mountings.

New tanker awareness gear Using optics on the tank provides "see through" visual references. Basically it is the fancy visual system of the F-35 but for tanks. It is named, "Iron Vision".

A turret with integrated drone control for spotting and targeting.

edited 21st Jun '16 6:50:05 PM by TuefelHundenIV

I rather like the description of a tank as a "moving armored box designed to cause some pain".

Edit Nice finds, Teufel. Thanks for that.

I like the look of that new Rheinmetall gun. Interesting that they've went to a long-calibre version of it right from the start, unlike the old 120mm gun which started off as a L/44 variant. If whatever bunch of a-holes is in charge of our defence budget when that's out of prototype stage don't immediately start making plans on fitting it to the Challenger 2, they need shooting. Because I'm not sure our current plans to keep buying ever more expensive fodder for the L30 rifled cannon is sustainable in the longer term.

edited 21st Jun '16 7:10:14 PM by TamH70