TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The Armored Vehicle Thread

Go To

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6376: Jan 20th 2021 at 4:59:27 PM

I didn't know Mike Sparks had an account on Tropes.

First, wheeled armored vehicles are effectively universal and have worked quite well. The vast majority use tires that are either resistant to puncture and are bullet-resistant, self-sealing, use an automated tire pressure system that can keep even a badly damaged tire at least partially inflated, or a combination of those items. The Stryker alone can run with severely perforated tires or even missing wheels as long the two sides have enough to drive it very slowly. The Stryker is not the only example like this. Wheeled armored vehicles are not magically inferior and have consistently gone into active combat without issues including hits to the tires. Tracks are not king just a different option with their own drawbacks and benefits.

This vehicle from the sounds of the initial reports has a litany of defects and problems with the design. It's damning of the design so far but not the use of armored wheeled vehicles. The article was pretty light on details like what kind of tires it has, why does it take 2 hours to change, does it have a pressure system, what's wrong with RW stations, the difficulty in escaping, and other issues.

This makes me think the Corps should have revived the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). For you tracked fans it's tracked but its speed on water is pretty damn fast, 30mm gun system and turret which could use new ammo like the special fuzed ammo, crew compartment and was built and tested pretty thoroughly to fit the same need.

Who watches the watchmen?
Imca (Veteran)
#6377: Jan 20th 2021 at 5:17:29 PM

The diffrence is those armored wheeled vehicles are not front line tip o the spear fighters, sure they get out there because no one in warfare pays attention to the lines, but thats not there point, there support and axilary vehicles... there sent where fighting is going to happen, but not to where it is thickest.

You don't use a stryker when the zone is that hostile, you use a bradley... And IIRC the marine doctrine puts them right up front where that extra surviviability becomes important.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6378: Jan 20th 2021 at 5:47:22 PM

Immy: No, that isn't accurate either. The bulk of armored wheeled vehicles are not by any measure just auxiliary or support vehicles. That is a grossly inaccurate assumption and has never been true since the first armored car for warfare was rolling around. Modern examples are multi-role bodies that serve as the platform for quite a few variants including several frontline units. And no I am not talking an RWS with just a .50. Quite a few are frontline examples are Mortar carriers, ATGM units, Anti-Air/Ground, IFV with an auto-cannon mount, and even large-bore fire support. That is not the example of strictly battle taxi design, and unlike the M-113 the vast majority of the modern examples were meant to be multi-role adaptable including frontline use.

Yes, you do use the Stryker in a hostile battlefield, that's exactly what it is designed for especially sporting 14mm resistant armor schemes. It's not a 5-ton cargo truck or aluminum armored M-113. It's meant to be able to take some fire.

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#6379: Jan 20th 2021 at 5:54:57 PM

I’ve heard they made a tire that’s like foam interior and requires no inflation. Why not use that?

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#6380: Jan 20th 2021 at 5:57:11 PM

You think the Marine Corp can afford things like foam?

Oh really when?
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6381: Jan 20th 2021 at 6:06:26 PM

The common tire is one that has a solid core interior with empty space for air so it can basically run flat and support the rim. There are also those weird looking mesh tires that have a solid tread but a honeycomb-like interior space.

If the new vehicles are doing worse than the LAV they use now they need to really consider going back to the drawing board.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jan 20th 2021 at 8:07:43 AM

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#6382: Jan 20th 2021 at 6:06:41 PM

[up][up]Well they can afford a constant supply of crayons to eat so yes they can afford foam.

[up] That's the one I’m talking about!

Edited by MajorTom on Jan 20th 2021 at 6:07:36 AM

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6383: Jan 20th 2021 at 6:08:18 PM

Tom: Its supposedly more widely used these days. Not sure if the Corps has adopted its use but supposedly the Strykers use them.

Who watches the watchmen?
Imca (Veteran)
#6384: Jan 20th 2021 at 10:02:02 PM

And no I am not talking an RWS with just a .50. Quite a few are frontline examples are Mortar carriers, ATGM units, Anti-Air/Ground, IFV with an auto-cannon mount, and even large-bore fire support

This... is support vehicles, not front line brawlers... Mortars, ATMG, Anti-Air, they all have a much longer range then canons, and generally rely on not getting into a direct fight if they can avoid it.

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#6385: Jan 20th 2021 at 10:20:54 PM

Hey now, those IFVs are about as far forward as it gets.

They're mixing it up with tanks and enemy armor and dropping people off right at the gate and following them through it.

If BTRs can do it there's no reason we can't make a vehicle that does too.

Oh really when?
Imca (Veteran)
#6386: Jan 20th 2021 at 10:24:58 PM

They are only mixing it up with tanks when something goes wrong, even Bradleys try to fuck off before engaging wit a tank if they can... and they are substantially heavier vehicles.

Heavy armor's mere presence is a threat in and of itself, a ground based microchasam of the naval concept of "fleet in being"

Edited by Imca on Jan 20th 2021 at 10:25:56 AM

LeGarcon Blowout soon fellow Stalker from Skadovsk Since: Aug, 2013 Relationship Status: Gay for Big Boss
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
#6387: Jan 20th 2021 at 10:25:24 PM

Everything always goes wrong

Oh really when?
Imca (Veteran)
#6388: Jan 20th 2021 at 10:28:18 PM

I mean yes, but you assume it doesn't when designing vehicles, or else your going to wind up with something that has 30 different weapon systems, armor thicker then an iowa's, a 10000 horse power engine, and costs more then a small town.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6389: Jan 21st 2021 at 4:50:37 AM

Immy: Except nearly all of those at best have a range that would put them in the same general range band as tanks especially any with direct fire weapons. You can't use those weapons from the rear and are almost always used as what they are, heavy weapon platforms and in some cases rides for the infantry. You can't move the goalposts on this one. Regardless if you agree or not they are being used in frontline combat roles.

Who watches the watchmen?
Imca (Veteran)
#6390: Jan 21st 2021 at 5:01:35 AM

Its not even close to the same range band, mortars and ATGM have nearly double the range of the Rh-120... thats kind of there whole point, fire suport, and long range tank killing to the point that russians carry gun fired ATGM specificly for engaging US tanks beyond where they can fire back.... and even beyond that they are used in ways that puts them closer to there maximum engagement range, they are ambush predators not brawlers.

Edited by Imca on Jan 21st 2021 at 5:02:48 AM

MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#6391: Jan 21st 2021 at 6:13:11 AM

Its not even close to the same range band, mortars and ATGM have nearly double the range of the Rh-120...

The kinds of mortars that can reach or exceed the Rheinmetall L/44 in terms of range are those that would be classed as like divisional, battalion, brigade or regimental artillery. The 120 mortars are not portable compared to the 60's and 81's and are deployed like howitzers or other field artillery.

Even then, good luck hitting a tank at those extreme ranges and hitting it for good effect.

ATGM's on the other hand, depend on platform and are seldom mobile when not bolted onto another vehicle. Javelin and TOW for example can match the range of a Rheinmetall L/44 under certain circumstances and ammunition (Javelin being outranged otherwise) but doesn't really exceed it. Even the longest ranged ATGM's like Kornet or Sniper don't really exceed 10 km. (And that's under perfect conditions since they require laser guidance rather than fire and forget.)

Edited by MajorTom on Jan 21st 2021 at 6:14:04 AM

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6392: Jan 21st 2021 at 5:50:09 PM

Immy: The frontline is not determined by some narrowly defined range band for a limited number of weapons. The frontline is where the combat is or is likely to occur between two different forces positions and that can be anywhere from knife fighting close to artillery barrage range.

Most ATGM's that are not only carried by infantry but also mounted on vehicles with few exceptions can't hit past 4km to 5km on average. Kornet is one of the few with longer reach for the EM models and then they tend to use them at shorter ranges to ensure accuracy.

That's great that a gun launched missile out ranges a pure ballistic shot but that doesn't stop it from being a frontline weapon by any measure.

Also ambushes happen on the frontline all the time both up close and at long range.

The only mortar systems I have seen that can hit 10km or more have to use rocket boosted ammo and that is the exception rather than the rule. Nearly every single mortar out there even the big Russian 240mm mortars still in use fall in the less than 10 km band for max effective ranges for normal shell fire.

The Switch Blade 300 LAM is a frontline weapon carried by infantry with an effective range of 10km. It on average is outranging even most mortar systems.

Since we want to bring up the Russians they still field a fair number of wheeled armored vehicles intended for frontline combat.

As warfare continues to advance in terms of technology the area that can possibly be considered the frontlines continues to grow not shrink.

Its simple a significant number of these armored wheeled vehicles are frontline combat units. You can also have a frontline support unit. It basically boils down to will they be in the combat zone between two powers.

Who watches the watchmen?
AFP Since: Mar, 2010
#6393: Jan 22nd 2021 at 12:02:31 AM

This whole discussion reminds me of a comment on the Sherman vs Panzer debate somewhere that pointed out that, by far, the most common cause for losses of either vehicle was... dismounted anti-tank guns in prepared ambush positions. I suspect it has to do with the fact that they could choose where to fight while on the defensive, and that a dismounted gun is much easier to conceal than any kind of tank.

FluffyMcChicken My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare from where the floating lights gleam Since: Jun, 2014 Relationship Status: In another castle
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
#6394: Jan 22nd 2021 at 2:52:11 AM

There's also counting landmines, IE Ds, and mechanical breakdowns.

TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6395: Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:01:12 AM

I think that still holds true. AT ambushes are still the biggest loss of tanks from direct combat. Throw in the fact in the modern era the infantry are capable of fielding Portable AT weapons capable of knocking out pretty much any modern tank in some way or another.

Who watches the watchmen?
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#6396: Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:09:24 AM

I think that still holds true. AT ambushes are still the biggest loss of tanks from direct combat.

I would've thought the biggest source of loss for tanks besides other tanks would've been air support. There's not a land vehicle out there that survives a direct smack from a 500/1000/2000 lb bomb.

If I remember correctly in 1944/1945 the top two sources of tank/vehicle kills were 1) other tanks and 2) air raids. Number 3 being artillery bombardments and anti-tank guns/infantry anti-tank weapons being distant 4 and 5 respectively (with naval artillery bringing up the rear owing to a lack of opportunity).

I know in Desert Storm at least something like 30-40% of all materiel losses be they tanks, IFV's, etc. incurred by Saddam were from air power.

dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#6397: Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:16:49 AM

Speaking of anti-tank, what was the name of that gun which was initially designed as an anti-air but was much better at shredding tanks (and human flesh)?

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
MajorTom Since: Dec, 2009
#6398: Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:21:17 AM

^ Which one? Because almost everybody had something to that effect. The most famous is the Nazi German 8.8cm Flak 18 aka Flak 88. The American M1/M2/M3 90mm series was the same thing. The Soviet 76 and 85mm air-defense guns also were used in that capacity and like the 88/90mm of the aforementioned were adapted to their tanks like the T-34 tank in their case.

The only ones who didn't have guns usable like that were the Chinese and French. The Japanese made rare use of them and the British weren't using theirs in that role much either.

Edited by MajorTom on Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:22:13 AM

dRoy Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar from Most likely from my study Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: I'm just high on the world
Professional Writer & Amateur Scholar
#6399: Jan 22nd 2021 at 6:39:39 AM

Flak 88, that was the one.

As in, that was the one that I was thinking of, but yeah, you got a point there.

Continuously reading, studying, and (hopefully) growing.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#6400: Jan 22nd 2021 at 7:07:10 AM

Tom: Actually the BDA's of ground teams during WWII and data analysis after found aircraft were the least effective. The bulk of tank kills came from Gunfire first from AT guns, then tanks, then artillery. AT ambushes and defenses were noted as very effective against armor formations.

Dedicated AT weapons are still the number one killer even over other tanks because of both numbers and opportunities infantry have to fire on tanks especially from ambush. Modern guided munitions from aircraft platforms have become very effective and deadly but ground forces are still the number killer of armor hands down because they are far more likely to not only make contact but make it consistently and persistently.

Even during the Gulf War, the bulk of enemy ground forces losses were to other ground forces. Airpower shares of the kills were up notably but they still weren't beating out ground forces.

Who watches the watchmen?

Total posts: 6,519
Top