FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
Russia develops new main battle tank
Tuesday, April 11, 2000
USDEFENSE.COM | Russia has a new low profile main battle tank, according to published reports, but officials in Moscow say the tank, designated T-95, may not have enough funding budgeted in 2000 to make the transition from development to production.
The tank's design, developed at the Uralvagonzavod plant in the Urals, was called "radical" by Russian Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeyev, who saw a prototype of the T-95 on a recent visit to the plant.
One of newly elected president Vladimir Putin's goals is to strengthen the Russian military, perhaps by boosting professionalism and cutting forces while modernizing primary combat systems and phasing out older ones.
While all of the design information on the T-95 remains shrouded in secrecy, one plant official told Jane's Defense Weekly that the tank has been created from whole cloth, not simply based on an upgraded version of an existing main battle tank design.
The T-95, if produced en masse, would succeed Russia's T-90, the most modern of Moscow's main battle tanks and reportedly plagued by performance and maintenance problems, though Russian military officials have dismissed those reports as rumors.
Nevertheless, Jane's said, the length and width of the new 50-ton behemoth is "believed to be similar to the existing T-72, T-80 and T-90 MBTs (main battle tanks)."
The defense magazine said "the main feature of the T-95 is its radical configuration with the main armament in a small unmanned turret fed from a newly-designed automatic loader located below the turret." The tank sports a 135 mm cannon, which is presumably smooth-bored, and "is fitted with a new fire control system."
Here's a backgrounder for any who are unfamiliar with General Shinseki's plan to abolish all US tanks:
General Shinseki's Plan to Abolish our War-Winning Tank Fleet by 2012
bump
So, do the tank crews have lavatory facilities and enough food and water for a week inside the tank?
Wow....What fools! The tank has been as instrumental in warfare as our flying arsenal. I suppose they think the Apache or Comanche will just dispatch with these baby's without a problem.
Wasn't it Schwarzkopf who indicated that no war can be won solely from the air, Kosovo being an abherration (since it is debateable that we "won" there).
Wow....What fools! The tank has been as instrumental in warfare as our flying arsenal. I suppose they think the Apache or Comanche will just dispatch with these baby's without a problem.
Wasn't it Schwarzkopf who indicated that no war can be won solely from the air, Kosovo being an abherration (since it is debateable that we "won" there).
Exactly! Planes and ships don't win wars. Armies do. The tank, more than any single other conventional system is the dominant weapon system in any land war. Without them, the US army will be unable to beat even a second or third rate regional power like Iraq. We may not be able to beat back the Koreans if they invade the South. Certainly, not the Russians if they invade Poland or the Baltics, which is admittedly a highly unlikely scenario for the near future.
As you so shrewdly pointed out, it turns out that the US claims that we won the air war in Kosovo is a bunch of crap. Our claims of Yugoslav Third Army weapons destroyed was off by as much as a factor of ten since most of our weapons hit Yugoslav dummy tanks, roads, trucks, and bridges from 15,000 feet!
No biggie if you can't blow'em up, heat'em up, fry the three inside and that tank is just as good as dead....
But didn't you know that we will not need to fight a large scale battle against enemy forces, we are now essentially policemen.
Here we go again. I wish some of the folks that express their opinions would have a basic knowledge of ballistics. The actual penetration for a 120mm DU round is much more than what folks realize. Will be interesting in seeing how this progresses. Having my "intimate" familiarity with the IBCT (Interim Brigade Combat Team) I will be keeping a close watch on what is happening. So far most of what is being said here is so far out in left field as to be laughable. Yes, there is a T-95 coming out, but are we getting rid of the M1A1 and M1A2? Not anytime soon, the new family of lighter vehicles will complement them not replace them. And please don't be stuck on a LAV, there were 11 different contractors provide vehicles for the demo, and they were not all LAV's. Look to the Armored Gun System, the Bionix, and others for some interesting solutions.
I agree with you on this. Suggest you check out FAS.org for more details. Here (hopefully) is a link: FAS
Regards
J.R.
who cares - the flashover from a tac nuke will instantly bake (can you say 'ash') the inhabitants and reduce the metal to an unrecognizable glob. 3000 degrees is a great neutralizer...
You are involved in the IBCT program. Please check out the link in #10 and tell me if the info is accurate?
Thanks
J.R.
Yes, there is a T-95 coming out, but are we getting rid of the M1A1 and M1A2? Not anytime soon, the new family of lighter vehicles will complement them not replace them. And please don't be stuck on a LAV, there were 11 different contractors provide vehicles for the demo, and they were not all LAV's. Look to the Armored Gun System, the Bionix, and others for some interesting solutions.
You are incorrect and apparently fairly uninformed. We are indeed getting rid of the M-1 Abrams tank family. These are to be fully retired from active service by 2012. The decision has been made. As to your comment on the LAV, I merely used the example of the LAV-III for illustrative purposes since the LAV-III has been chosen to equip the first two interim "medium weight" brigades. Furthermore, despite the fact that there were about 38 different tracks and wheels competing at the demo to be chosen as our Future Combat Vehicle, my friends at Army Material Command (who are in a position to know and have first hand knowledge) say that the wheels will win because all of our top generals are committed to moving to wheels, not tracks. This means, my friend, that the Abrams tank fleet will be retired from service (and hopefully mothballed rather than sold or destroyed) and that the M-1's successor is almost guaranteed to be an armored car and not a light tank like the excellent M-8 Armored Gun System.
Russian tanks always look great on paper. Is this 152mm gun like the one on the now obsolete Sheridan tank?
So, do the tank crews have lavatory facilities and enough food and water for a week inside the tank?
I remember reading a German report on fighting the Russians. The story involved a German outfit that overran a Russian Tank division. The Germans took up their new position, but found that the Russians artillery nearby had an uncanny facility and accuracy in the area. A week later they opened up a Russian Tank that had been knocked out a week before. In it was a dead officer who had survived when the tank was knocked out. The officer had spent a week locked in the tank with no food, no 'facilities' and his dead crewmen, slowly dying, but radioing out spotting information.
I doubt the Russians will add such 'facilitites'.
By the same token, I am sure we will always be able to kiss German butt and buy tanks from the them. They do make excellent tanks. They seem to have no plans to stop production of them, despite their cutbacks in NATO. Last I heard, they were trying to close a deal with the Turks for 1000 tanks. I guess Clinton doesn't think Americans can compete in that market. Curious.
who cares - the flashover from a tac nuke will instantly bake (can you say 'ash') the inhabitants and reduce the metal to an unrecognizable glob. 3000 degrees is a great neutralizer...
That is all fine and dandy except for the fact that the US has retired all of its tactical nukes from service. It maintains a grand total of 2500 in "active reserve" here in the states. The rest have been dismantled or are awaiting dismantlement/destruction. The US does maintain 150 tactical nuclear aerial bombs in Europe, but these have been dismantled and separated from their fuses so that it would take several weeks to rebuild them according to no less a source than the champion of unilateral nuclear disarmament himself, US President Bill Clinton. These bombs were rumored to be on the verge of withdrawal by last New Years Eve, but apparently the decision was taken to keep them there.
I have to say they aren't much of a deterrent against attack since they could not be employed for several weeks after the decision to rebuild them was taken. The Russians have over 20,000 tactical and theater nukes and are building "thousands" per year according to sworn testimony to Congress by former US Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Energy and Director, Central Intelligence, James Schlesinger.
These newer nuclear warheads are minitiarized and weigh under 200 lbs each which enables the Russians to pack a lot more of them in each of their ballistic missiles than previously was the case and than is permitted under SALT 2 Treaty restrictions. Why would they be doing this after they agreed to the modified START 2 Treaty? It appears their intentions are far from benevolent.
Russian tanks always look great on paper. Is this 152mm gun like the one on the now obsolete Sheridan tank?
Yes and no. The 152mm on the M-551 Sheridan and M-60A2 was the first dual purpose gun/missile armament ever installed on an armored vehicle. The Russians copied our excellent idea and have utilized gun/missile smoothbore cannon on their T-64's, T-80's, T-90's, BMP-3's, 2S25's, and on selected modified T-72's and T-55's. These gun launched ATGM's can destroy enemy tanks at ranges of up to 4 kilometers and have a very high kill/penetration capability overall. The T-95's 152mm cannon maintains the gun/missile duality, but like previous Russian tank models keeps a long-barreled high velocity smoothbore cannon to do so, not a gun/mortar looking armament like we find on the Sheridan. Incidentally, the Russian gun/missile armament on all of their modern tanks, tank destroyers, and BMP-3s is also useful in shooting down enemy helos.
Has anyone ever used these missiles in combat?
No worry. The average Russian soldier will drink all the anti-freeze and brake fluid out, so they won't run.....
How will one of these MAV/LAVs take on a hull-down T-95?
Wheeled vehicles work fine for quick and comfortable movement as long as good roads are available, the terrain is not too difficult and minimal amounts of ordinance are flying through the air.
For tough (mud snow sand)terrain in hostile conditions, tracked vehicles are needed.
. The actual penetration for a 120mm DU round is much more than what folks realize.
It is a great deal more than people realize but an MiA1 Heavy can not penetrate the frontal armor of another M1A1 heavy at relatively close range.Assuming that the Russians have developed armor similar to what we are using, they still are bound by the laws of physics which says that stuff is gol danged heavy. Result--you armor the front and the rest of the tank is relatively light.
I like to use analogy of the African elephant hunter W.E.B. (Karomojo) Bell who killed hundreds of elephant with little caliber rifles. He knew the anatomy of the elephant. Our Abrams series of tanks, I am convinced, can devestate any thing on the battle field for the next 25 years.
The light armor of the Intermediate Brigade; now that is another story.
How do you post a direct link? I'd put up the IBCT link if I knew how.
Thanks
'skinner
Wow...you're telling a guy who actually works on the program that he's uninformed. We defer to thy revealed wisdom (which thou hast undoubtedly pulled from thy dorsal orifice).
The 152MM gun was an excellent idea. Unfortunately, like many excellent ideas, it did not work as advertised in real life. Gun/missile combos sound nice, but they do not work. The Sheridan had a dead spot in its engagement range--if you stayed less than 2500 meters out and more than 1500 meters out, the poor Sheridan couldn't kill you with the missile (it wasn't stabilized and guiding yet) and it couldn't kill you with a gun round (the HEAT round fell out of the sky at 2000, and was worthless beyond 1500).
Also, a 152MM gun--assuming it's high velocity--will have all kinds of unpleasant problems--the sort that killed the 140MM project in the US. Once you get up around 140MM or so, you are paying a huge penalty in tube weight for performance gained--you're on the wrong side of the curve then. Gunpowder-based guns have just about reached their maximum peak of development--electrothermal guns are the future, followed by pure electromagnetic guns (railguns and coilguns). You'll probably see the bore diameter decrease when these are fielded.
As for armor, you're telling me with a straight face that this thing will be able to MOVE with enough armor to stop the Silver Bullet? The round that got its ultimate penetration measured not by how much armor plate it went through, but how many TANKS it went through in Iraq?
And top armor sounds nice, but enough top armor to stop a serious shaped-charge (like Javelin) weighs a LOT--about 6 times as much as comparable front armor (because there's 6 times as much surface area to protect).
The REAL problem is that tanks are becoming obsolete--it costs a lot more money for what are essentially the same capabilities relative to the enemy's own capabilities that we had in World War II. At some point in the not-too-distant future, tanks will be replaced by a weapon system that does the same job much more cheaply.
Sounds like you work at either Watervliet Arsenal, the Pentagon or GDLS
Here is a link you might find interesting on the T-95 and other Russian MBTs as well as their passive/active defense systems and enhanced armor packs. You will have to click on the T-95 link on the left to see the summary.
Modern Russian Armor--T-95 MBT link
Well if it isn't Der Flammeister himself--the childish, arrogant, filthy-mouthed pubescent adolescent who named himself after a cartoon character.
How will one of these MAV/LAVs take on a hull-down T-95?
Well, their only hope would be dismounted Javelin teams. However, the T-95's heavy top armor might succeed in defeating the Javelin's penetrator or the Arena top-attack missile defense system might shoot it down before it impacts. The Russians have developed some amazing new armor that exceeds the defensive qualities of even the Abrams' Chobham armor in many respects. I can not provide you the details, which remain classified.
Has anyone ever used these missiles in combat?
Well, the Russians did not allow their missile armed T-64's and T-80's to be exported until after the "collapse" of the Soviet Union so to my knowledge, their gun-launced ATGM's have not been used by other countries in war. I am unsure as to whether the Pakistanis used their T-80U's in battle against Indian armor during their most recent clash. However, the Russians themselves have tested their missile armed tanks in combat in Afghanistan and Chechnya against their own captured armored vehicles.
In Kiev, met a SOV veteran of Stalingrad. He spent 17 months in one foxhole. Was within 100 meters of Germans and would exchange rifle fire every day. Food/ammo resupply brought to him once a week. Urine and defication would freeze in winter, then he could throw out of hole. Once a month, he got out for 12 hours to see his wife, who lived in an appartment basement bunker 6 blocks from his hole.
Tough guys.
BUMP!
In Kiev, met a SOV veteran of Stalingrad
We never fought a war like that. Thank God, and bless the Germans for fighting the Reds, and the Reds for fighting the Germans.
the Russkies are going to kick our buttes
Not likely the two will ever meet in combat with armor and all. If they do, it will be to link up to defeat a common foe. Like before. Friends forever.
Better than being one of those types who just cannot let go of the Cold War. You remind me of a neighbor of mine who had one hell of a time coming home from Vietnam--because, in his mind, he was still there. For you and others like you, it's still 1983, and the USSR has just shot down a Korean airliner...
We won.
We now have a new set of problems to deal with.
Oh, and Poohbah was NOT a cartoon character; he was a character in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado. Your problem is that you're nekulturny.
i saw a picture in a magazine years ago,basically is a tank without a turret with a big gun,but you have to move tank in the direction you want to shoot exposing the side of tank with less armor to enemy. i still have that magazine,arrgghh now you made me spend a couple of hours looking on old boxes.
Sporting your resume again Poohbah? Last week you were an expert on the SS-27 missile until you got your ass kicked.
but russians are always thinking "europe" nato,germany will find out first.
By eliminating the turret, where does the ammo go? How much ammo can the T-95 carry compared to earlier models?
For every weapon an enemy posseses, a weapon capable of defeating the enemy weapon in a variety of situations is necessary. Not having such a weapon results in friendly casualties.
Interesting link - thanks. Some thoughts, though. First, a 'non-crew accessible' turret sounds like a really bad idea. The Russians are no more immune to Murphy's Law than anyone else, and if something goes wrong (misfire, bad feed/eject, whatever), there's no easy way to fix it - that's bad...
Additionally, the 152mm weapon, on a chassis of approximately the same size of the present Russian tanks, translates to fewer shells carried. Furthermore, the number of new systems in this vehicle (claimed new suspension, new main gun, new autoloader, new powerpack, ect.) means that the Russians are going to have to improve their maintainance facilities markedly.
I wonder if this tank might not be a technology demonstrator (as with the S-37), and not a true series production vehicle. It would square more with the state of Russia at the present time...
-SV
You may be confusing the T-95 with some kind of prototype assault gun. The T-95 has a gun turret. Its just unmanned and thus much smaller. The T-95, unlike SP guns, assault guns, or some tank destroyers does not have to move the entire tank to aim and fire the gun, thus it has none of the disadvantages that you mentioned.
Um...I read the cite you gave on FAS, and their data compared SS-25 to Minuteman II, SS-27 to Minuteman III. If you pass me bum data, I will make my assessments based on that data. The fact that the two missiles have the same Russian name implies that they're pretty similar--please, oh luminous one, tell me why I should panic over the SS-27 and not the SS-25...
Sheesh.
The tank you mentioned is indeed a series production model. It would not have a tank (T-) designator otherwise. It has moved beyond the prototype stage. You are right about fewer rounds..No doubt about that. I think the unmanned turret problem can be managed. However, the Russkies are short on funds so I think we won't see more than a few hundred of these, probably less, until their economy recovers as it is only now starting to do.
please, oh luminous one, tell me why I should panic over the SS-27 and not the SS-25...
Because if these START treaties are put in place with Topol-M missiles that are upgraded with MIRV capability, then Russia stands to have a six to seven fold advantage in nuclear capability with the US. Comprende, oh luminous one? But please, keep us up to date with your imaginative neighbor stories they bring great entertainment to us.
The round that got its ultimate penetration measured not by how much armor plate it went through, but how many TANKS it went through in Iraq?
There is some stuff we are seeing now that is declassified that fully supports this statement. Like "end to end" penetration during a couple of friendly fire incidents. I try not to let folks bother me too much when it is obvious that they do not know what they are talking about. I could say more, but there is a little thing called opsec that still exists in the military. It is bad enough that we have to put up with Clinton giving our secrets away, we don't need poor little folks like me saying more. I am going to send a note to rightwing2 and tell him what my job with the IBCT is. I got a whole lot more involved this week than I had been before and now see that most of what he has posted is sure not what the decision makers in the army are planning. Maybe rightwing2 is higher than Shinseki in the chain of command, but I doubt it.
The information in post #10 is pretty good. I haven't looked at all of it, but on the surface it looked close. The whole IBCT concept is still changing, and I will try to update links like this with info as I get it.
The article in the link states that it's a little unclear whether the tank is actually in series production or not, regardless of the T- designation, which is why I bring it up - it's just a thought, especially since the present Russian military advances seem to involve more demonstrators than production vehicles.
In any event, it's an interesting topic. In response to the original post, I think the M1s probably should be replaced by 2012 - with other, better tanks. I don't see any reason for the tank or other tracked vehicles to go anywhere, regardless of the wishes of anyone in the present administration.
-SV
Thanks for giving that guy a good kick in the butte. Man, that guy is such a pain.
On a happier note, I agree entirely with your excellent analysis on the SS-27 issue. As you know, the SS-27 has been reported to be capable of carrying up to 8 miniaturized MIRVd warheads of the kind currently being mass produced by the Russians in their still-secret nuclear cities. This is despite the fact that the SS-27 is a nominally single-warhead missile. Its predecessor, the nominally single-warhead SS-25 was nothing but an SS-20 with a third stage. The SS-20 however, despite being the smallest of the lot, was a three warhead missile.
The United States has no way of confirming that the Russians have destroyed one single warhead, though they have partially dismantled several hundred, perhaps a few thousand that once armed Soviet missiles in the near abroad states. These dismantled warheads, however, would take only a matter of days to put back together. The US has no way of verifying that all current Russian missiles are MIRV'd to capacity which is 2-3 times the SALT 2 treaty limits of each missile. For example, it has been known since 1983 that the SS-18 was capable of carrying 30 warheads and not merely ten as it is limited by SALT 2.
Similarly, the US will not be able to verify that the Soviets have un-MIRV'd their missiles after START 2 is put into effect in 2007 and START 3 a few years later. The Russians can be trusted to cheat on these arms control treaties as they always have as it is in their best interests to do so. A pre-emptive attack or merely a serious threat of one would not be impossible under such circumstances.
Well, I agree that the T-95 has not yet entered production. However, my point was that it was on the verge of production as the prototypes appeared to have performed satisfactorily. Thus, the award of a T-designator by Marshal Sergeyev which was a very recent development. When and how many they will produce is another question entirely.
Funny, how Jane's seems to have got it wrong on the main armament being 135mm.
I agree entirely with you that the M-1 series should be replaced with newer better tanks. Some people forget that before Shinseki's hair-brained plan to abolish the entire tank fleet and replace them with armored cars, we had been planning for something bigger and better with a 140mm gun. The US Block III tank was one of the last such planned tank upgrades, but it was cancelled by Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton then redoubled his mistake by cancelling the M-8 Armored Gun System (AGS) in 1995.
My point here is that if we are going to have light forces as Shinseki envisions then we need to at least keep them tracked. The AGS would be the best pick, but alas the generals seem wedded to the idea of wheels and infantry centric dismounted troops which are unable to engage heavy forces! Furthermore, our light forces should be restricted to no more than 2 Army divisions. Better yet, keep the 3 Marine divisions as our light forces with LAV type vehicles and let the Army stay equipped to actually fight and win wars instead of work more effectively as the global policeman of the planet in operations other than war.
Well of course, what we fought in Operation Desert Cupcake in 1991 was second rate "Monkey model" equipment with mostly 1950's, 1960's, and only some early 1970's technology, not the front line or even second line Soviet equipment of the time, therefore our winning performance vs. the hapless Iraqis can hardly be used as a good measure for what our effectiveness would be vs. the Russian army then or now. The Russian's ERA packs are very effective in defeating high-penetrating Western rounds, though we certainly cannot positively confirm this vs. the US 120mm cannon at present. However, one of our comrades here did illustrate that US M-1A1 Heavy Armor (HA) tanks were not necessarily capable of defeating other M1A1s at close range. It is not inconceivable that the new Russian armor could be this good at present especially given classified armor improvements of which I am aware.
GDLS has some information that has recently been declassified concerning a disabled M1A1 HA during Desert Storm. (It was a storm, I was in Viet Nam, my father-in-law a tank destroyer in WWII and a tanker in Korea and believe me, some of what our soldiers, notice not all, saw in Desert Storm was the stuff of heros and movies.) Anyway, we are not here to tell No - S**t war stories. The information GDLS concerns the troop commander asking for a receiving permission to destroy the M1A1 in question. They replaced all KE rounds with HEAT, used another M1A1 from about 1,000 meters and hit the disabled tank in the turret, blow off doors flew up, the propellent burned for a few minutes and that was it. The tank was still operational and the crew would probably have survived, although injuries would have been severe. Anyway, they ended up using a blade tank to dig a hole and buried it until the end of the "war" when it was recovered and returned to service.
I have no doubt that you have loads of experience in tanks, however technology is rapidly advancing in this field and even those of us that work it every day are hard pressed to stay up-to-date on the latest advances.
The IBCT missions are not going to be to slug it out with a heavy division. THe mission role is getting there fast and then being able to fight as soon as they are on the ground. Although they do not have a mission of a forced insertion, that is something left for the 82nd, 101st and the Rangers. These units would be a follow-on to them, giving them extra punch. Granted, the LAV families are cracker boxes in some regards, they are heads above the current "Up-Armored HMMWV". With protection levels in the upper reaches of small arms and then adding a spall liner, they will provide a reasonable amount of survivability to the soldiers in them.
Anyway, I could rattle on all evening about the pros and cons of this whole program. As I said before, I might not agree with the missions they will get, but we have the obligation to provide the best equipment humanly possible to your son and mine.
I don't know if it is true or not that we are planning to mothball our M-1 Abram tanks or not, but we can always get more from Egypt which now manufacturers them under US license:) Whether or not the heavy tank has a big future is debatable. After all, there were some armies that kept horse cavalry around even into WWII for similar reasons. Generals always tend to fight future wars with last-war tactics and equipment. But the Soviets did use horse cavalry to a limited degree in WWII where horses did well in terrain that bogged down GErman tanks. THere is a right time and place for every weapon. But it is important not to get too enamored by any particular weapon or platform, whether it be the horse, the tank or the helicopter. Actually, in WWII the allies (the US and Britain) had lousy tanks compared to the GErmans and even to the Russians. It was gaining control of the air over western Europe that enabled us to advance on the western front. And it was more on the steppes of the Russion front that tanks made a major difference.
re: your #44
Thanks for the reply. I suggest you check out the FAS site in detail. There is an amazing amount of info there, particularly on weapon systems (US and OPFOR). The site has an effective embedded search engine.
Regards
J.R.
The main problem is that we really don't have any major problems at the moment, and that bothers and bores a lot of people. I say boredom is good, and certainly much better than war if not quite as exciting. The truth of the matter is that we have no serious military competitor for the next 50 years at the very least. We are like England between the Crimean war and WWI. The major problem is somehow controlling proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of small, radical states. Still, other than Russia, there really is no other power capable of destroying the UNited State, albeit, they might be able to destroy a city or two, as tragic as that would be, but they would be totally annihilated in return. It is doubtful that that situation will change much in the next 20 years.
I agree with you J. I am not a soldier, my time in the military was with the USN, but I do know that the Soviets-Russians never throw anything away.
There is always going to be a time or place where they will be useful.
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of an Army without a single MBT and the pros and cons given in this thread are definitely food for thought.
However, the thing that definitely strikes me as ominous is the rate at which the Russians are continuing to produce new and powerful weapon systems for sale to the Chinese.
These top-top-of-the-line systems are not being built to conquer Ehiopia or Australia. They are being designed, built and stockpiled with one foe in mind, and that is the United States. To assume otherwise is the ultimate folly.
We need to seriously get a grip here.
Just as Regan had to fix what Carter did to the DOD so will Bush have to with regards to the Bubbafucco era.........
"Save the Tank and Nuke the whales"
There will be no war between Russia and the US, unless both have mad presidents at the same time. A war between Russia and the US would cause a complete pizdets. Poohbah, learn a new word in addition to nekulturny
Actually, in WWII the allies (the US and Britain) had lousy tanks compared to the GErmans and even to the Russians.
The Germans had one mercedes where they could have had 10 chevys. The Russian tanks were the best in bang for the buck ratio.
This is really facinating stuff..
BUMP!
(I don't know didly squat about it.. but it's makes for a very interesting read.)
Well, China is committed to regaining Taiwan eventually, and it will, but hopefully without war and as a democratic China, not the present single party state. But I can't see who China would use heavy tanks against. If anything, the Russians, who have the largest border with China - mineral rich Siberia - should be the most concerned. If they are not concerned, why should we be? Will China roll those tanks over the Rio Grande or the Canadian border? Will they invade Japan with them? They are certainly not going to get them over MOunt Everest. China is going to be a great power again, and if they want to waste their money on heavy tanks, I don't see why that should overly concern us. If there is some scenario I'm missing I'd like to be clued in. But I don't get it.
General George S. Patton is probably spinning in his grave. He would have busted General Shinseki to private and then personally shot him for blasphemy and heresy.
True, but you have to have ten drivers and ten crews for ten chevys. The Russians had, and have, a HUGE land area to defend, lots of people to defend it, but very little money, so the T-34 was a fabulous solution considering their constraints. But up to the T-34, the average German tank could easily knock out ten Russian tanks, but the T-34 changed that equation, which had a lot to do with turning the course of the war, especially after the Battle of Kursk.
The Interm Brigade Combat Team will be implemented over a period of time. The first brigade is being formed around some LAV's "borrowed" from Canada. These vehicles will be used exclusively at the home station for this brigade and will assist in the development of the TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures) for these brigades. The first brigade to be actually fielded and ready to go to war will not be until FY 2007. As soon as it is fielded, the first two brigades will start the turn in of equipment and drawing whatever it is the IBCT is fielded with. The second brigade will be issued with the LRIP (low rate initial production) equipment and will have to have some bugs worked out. If the LRIP equipment meets requirements the 2nd Bde might keep it, but right now that is not the plan.
The wheeled vs tracked battle is now raging. The Army understands that the PPD information they gathered is to be used only for the formulation of the Request for Proposal (RFP) and so does industry. As I understand it, the RFP is on the street and the source selection will start next month. Each contractor is to provide a "bid sample" vehicle that will be tested extensively. This data will be used for the awarding of the final contract. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses, tracked for mobility cross country and in urban terrain, wheeled on the highway and increased mileage. One of the hardest aspects of my job is to keep my personal opinions out of it and use only the objective data provided by the equipment. Many have heartburn with an autoloader, but the reliablity numbers are surprisingly good. Guess time and more testing will tell.
The last one of your private observations is exactly on target. My feelings after listening to the army leadership is that they have a though nut to crack and the "powers to be" above them have not made life easy and this is the way to go to accomplish the mission they have been given and still preserve the Army as best they can. The real long pole in the whole program is funding. The bean counters in the Pentagon have raped and stripped just about every program they can to come up with the money for the IBCT.
Clinton and company have just about destroyed the military and it is up to those of us that can to do the best we can to protect it. Like I have said before, it is up to us to provide the best equipment we can for the poor soldier in the field.
As far as I remember, T-34 appeared early in the war, although in small numbers initially. The German good tanks started with Pantera and Tiger that they didn't have in the beginning. I would say T-34, when it first appeared, was better than the German tanks of that time. Wasn't Kursk the first massive application of the newest German tanks?
Here is some more on the General's no tank plan:
Army Leader: Tanks Undergoing Change ( AP Online ) ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer; 10-13-1999
Army Leader: Tanks Undergoing Change
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Army without tanks?
If Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's vision of a 21st century land force becomes reality, the tank as we know it today -- the 60- ton M-1 Abrams -- may be replaced by a smaller, lighter, wheeled vehicle that can be transported more quickly to remote battlefields.
In a speech Tuesday, Shinseki unveiled his plan for transforming the Army to make it more responsive to short-notice crises and smaller- scale conflicts -- like the war over Kosovo -- that have increasingly occupied and stretched the American military since the end of the Cold War.
``This commitment to change will require a comprehensive transformation of the Army,'' Shinseki told the annual convention of the Association of the U.S. Army, a booster group.
Remaking the nation's largest military service will take years, but Shinseki is wasting no time. For starters, two combat brigades at Fort Lewis, Wash., will be converted into more flexible and faster moving units during the coming year, he said.
``I suspect that moving this quickly will be unnerving to some,'' he said. ``But I've spent a little time in central Texas where they have a saying: `You can't wring your hands and roll up your sleeves at the same time.''
Eventually the entire Army will be transformed, but he gave no timetable.
Shinseki spelled out ambitious goals, including achieving a capability to move a brigade-size force of about 5,000 soldiers from the United States to any place in the world within four days; a division of about 15,000 soldiers within five days and five divisions within 30 days. ``That is a stretch from our current capability,'' he said without giving specifics.
Shinseki, who took over as the Army's top uniformed leader in June, raised the possibility of doing away with the tank, which the Army has used in combat since World War II, by developing a family of wheeled vehicles less encumbered by weight yet lethal and capable of providing troop protection against armored attack.
``Can we, in time, go to an all-wheel vehicle fleet where even the follow-on to today's armored vehicles can come in at 50 percent to 70 percent less tonnage?'' he asked in his remarks. ``I think the answer is yes, and we're going to ask the questions and then go where the answers are.''
At a news conference later with Army Secretary Louis Caldera, the service's top civilian official, Shinseki said it was too early to spell out what equipment, including armor, will be eliminated.
``Everything's on the table,'' he said.
The Army, like the other military services, has been struggling since the end of the Cold War to adjust to the increasing demand for mobile forces capable of responding to regional crises in remote areas like the Balkans-- while maintaining the ability to fight an all-out land war.
Shinseki said the Army would not change its basic mission: ``Warfighting remains Job One.''
The Kosovo conflict, almost entirely an air war, revealed the Army was unable to move sizable combat forces quickly enough. It took far longer than expected to deploy Apache attack helicopters to Albania, and they never saw combat, although the Army is heavily involved now as Kosovo peacekeepers.
While Shinseki did not mention them specifically, other Army officials said the 3rd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division as well as the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division, both at Fort Lewis, would begin switching to new equipment and vehicles.
Shinseki said he could not estimate when the two brigades would be fully operational. He said Fort Lewis, whose units are designated for operations in Asia, including on the Korean Peninsula, was chosen to begin the transformation because of its ``maneuver space and gunnery ranges.'' He also mentioned the proximity of McChord Air Force Base, Wash., with its strategic airlift capabilities.
Shinseki said it was too early to estimate how much it will cost to make these changes and whether it will require more than the 480, 000 soldiers the Army is legally authorized to have on active duty.
The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press All Rights Reserved
ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer, Army Leader: Tanks Undergoing Change. , AP Online, 10-13-1999.
Thanks for your post. I am troubled by the fact that many of the vehicles in question only provide partial protection against AP rounds from standard 14.5mm heavy machine guns which are mounted on Russian BTR's for example. We need to ensure that our troops are given adequate armored protection against forseeable threats and I am afraid that is not going to happen with the current warped mindset being displayed by GEN Shinseki and others high up the food chain. We are going from a tank which is nearly proof against 120mm rounds from 1K distance to a vehicle that can be knocked out with HMG AP rounds, which is frankly a joke. This is exactly what our enemies hope to accomplish--the disbanding and abolition of our war-winning Abrams tank fleet without which we would have inevitably lost the Gulf War and without which we will inevitably lose all future regional wars.
Although I appreciate your argument, I have to laugh when I hear predictions that the heavy tank is obselete. We have heard that for the last few decades and these predictions of the demise of the tank have always proved to be premature. My question to you and others like Poohbah who are singing the siren song of tank obselescence is, what exactly would you propose you replace the heavy tank with--armored cars that can be destroyed with AP rounds from heavy machine guns. I think we can all agree that if any vehicle is obselete it is the armored car and not the heavy tank which proved capable during Desert Storm of withstanding all kinds of direct hits without difficulty.
The estimated cost for this transition from tanks and tracks to armored cars which are lightly armed and armored is $70 billion. In other words, we are going to have to pay up the wazoo to disarm our own army and equip it with weapons which are incapable of winning major wars. Already as SLB stated we have cut seven major programs outright including the excellent Crusader SP artillery program. The Sino-Russian alliance could not be more pleased even if MadRussian is correct that war with Russia can be avoided. Certainly, war with China over Taiwan cannot be.
I have a great idea. Why don't we sign a treaty banning tanks so that our unilateral disarmament of our tanks will be met with equal cuts by Russia, Communist China, and North Korea who never cheat on their treaties....Actually that would probably be preferable to what we are about to do under Shinseki's insane plan to turn our entire 10 division army into a force capable of nothing more than peacekeeping and operations other than war. At least, then the Russians and the ChiComs might try to actually fake compliance and destroy some of their tanks.
Unilateral disarmament of the US nuclear and conventional arsenal is the prequisite to war with the Sino-Russian alliance. It is the surest and shortest route to war. Everyone, but the peaceniks in the Clinton Administration should have learned that by now. However, it seems that Bush supports the Shinseki plan as well so unless we can elect a pro-national security President to office like Patrick J. Buchanan, it is probably going to happen anyway.
..... we have cut seven major programs outright including the excellent Crusader SP artillery program.
The Comanche helicopter will never fly either.
Thanks for the great article! They should at least restrict this transformation to the infantry divisions, which far more than the tank is on the verge of becoming obselete. The problem is that all of our infantry divisions except 2nd ID, 101 Air Assault, and 82 airborne are already mech, which means that for seven of our divisions, this transformation will mean discarding better, more protected equipment for these armored cars. Only for the 3 divisions mentioned above would 25 mm gun armored cars be an improvement over what they have already got--which is not much--mostly Hummers.
Thanks for the great article! They should at least restrict this transformation to the infantry divisions, which far more than the tank is on the verge of becoming obselete. The problem is that all of our infantry divisions except 2nd ID, 101 Air Assault, and 82 airborne are already mech, which means that for seven of our divisions, this transformation will mean discarding better, more protected equipment for these armored cars. Only for the 3 divisions mentioned above would 25 mm gun armored cars be an improvement over what they have already got--which is not much--mostly Hummers.
The funding for Crusader has been delayed. The program is not dead, far from it.
The delay is, probably, due to reallocation from the Crusader program to MAV.
The funding for Crusader has been delayed.
Don't hold your breath waiting for a "call for fire" with a Crusader.
bump
SLB is right the Crusader and the Commanche are dead and the ICBT program killed it. GW Bush says he supports eliminating the Crusader so if he wins it will stay dead. We can only guess what Gore thinks of it, but he seems to support everything his boss, Bill Clinton does. I think Buchanan would probably keep it because he is against transforming our army into nothing but a global police force. Thus, we would save $70 billion in wasted spending right off the bat with a Buchanan Administration--money that could be well-spent on upgrading rather than downgrading our ground and helo forces.
No problem. We won't be fighting the Russkies. They will
control Europe at the invitation of the U.S., and our army will be/is trained to kill
Americans, hence the need for armored vehicles to handle
domestic "Warway Ghetto" situations as they arise.
Hmmm...good question. The thing to look at is NOT that current tanks are obsolete, but that you keep spending more and more money to do the same job. It's not so much that a next generation conventional tank with a serious leap ahead in capability won't a fantastic example of the genre--it's the fact that the thing will probably cost as much as a late-model F-15E Strike Eagle ($40-60 million), and will only preserve a relative level of capability. The threat will continue to evolve.
For an example of the sorts of problems a tank will face in the future, look at the battleship. Even if the airplane hadn't been invented, the battleship would have died out in the 1940s, because long-range plunging fire meant that most hits would be on the deck instead of the side--and even relatively thin deck armor is expensive in weight because of the large surface area involved.
I can't predict the end of the tank, at least not to my satisfaction. However, as computers come down in price, missiles will get smarter, then you'll see autonomous and internetted wide-area mines, and those threats will drive up the total armor package weight, and then the engine weight (bigger engine to move the much heavier tank), and you'll need a bigger gun (when gun technology is getting to a point where further improvements aren't worth the price tag), etc. Pretty soon, you have a fantastically huge and expensive tank. And you're not getting more capability relative to your enemy, you're just keeping up. At some point, a new concept will break open the competition chain, and the tank will be seen as not being viable. Unfortunately, the problem is that the Powers That Be usually will not see it coming until they get knocked onto their backsides.
I think the key is to look to what the tank does as opposed to just having a vision of what the thing that does the tasks looks like (big, track-laying vehicles). I am NOT convinced that the IBCT concept is the way to go. Frankly, I'm wondering if the ground units of 2055 will be as recognizable to a Desert Storm veteran as a modern-day armored division is to his grandfather from World War II...
Have you ever read David's Sling by Marc Stiegler? It should be available at a used bookstore (it was published as science fiction by Baen in 1988). The concept is interesting...and it might provide a line of departure...
Hey, I thought the Russians were too poor to build this kind of stuff? Have I missed something in the last nine years?
Just curious.
Never read that book. I don't read fiction books as a rule. I don't even have the time to read all the great non-fiction national security type books I've been buying up.
If we ever have to pay $40-60 million for a tank, then I will be able to buy the argument that the tank is obselete. However, last I looked the excellent M1-A2 Abrams was costing $4 million a piece and the M1A1(HA) which many tankers prefer to the A2 was costing not much more than $2 million per copy.
The fact remains that tanks remain quite affordable to major powers like the USA. The low-cost Russian and highly effective Russian answers to the growing top-attack missile threat (ERA armor packs, advanced sensors and the ARENA active defense system) prove that such threats can be countered and very likely defeated with relatively cheap countermeasures.
I hear all the time that attack aircraft and helos have made the tank obselete. Wrong! We couldn't even hit the Yugoslav armor in Kosovo despite having a vaunted 99.6% hit ratio, which they could only come up with if you count as "hits" the hundreds of dummy tanks, roads, bridges, troops, and APC's "destroyed" by our aircraft. The truth is that the air war over Kosovo was a sad joke that I pray is not repeated in the near future.
The bottom line is that contrary to the doomsayers the heavy (40-60 ton) tank remains increasingly relevant to modern warfighting since it is the single most survivable ground weapon system though it is admittedly less useful in non-war "operations other than war" situations like peacekeeping and counterinsurgency ops which can best be handled by unprotected, expendable, and lightly armed groundpounders, who are increasingly obselete in modern war situations.
But in order to maintain the relative survivability in the future--and nearer term than you think--is going to cost a lot more money. It's like this: we now deploy a $2-4 million tank that is generally light years ahead of everyone else's tank. At some point, sooner than we care to admit, something better will come along, and it won't be wearing a US flag. We currently hugely overmatch any opponent, but sooner or later (and probably sooner), we will be faced with tanks better than the M1A2 or M1A1(HA). In order to maintain the huge overmatch we now enjoy (which we will need because we are not in a position to tolerate high attrition in combat), we will need to deploy something as far ahead of the new enemy tank (which will itself be at least somewhat ahead of the Abrams) as the Abrams is ahead of the T-64/72 series, and we will probably need it in the 2015-2020 timeframe.
And THAT tank, trust me, will cost $40-60 million in current dollars. If the Army doesn't get sticker shock, Congress will.
I would definitely recommend David's Sling. It talks about a lot of issues that nonfiction books just cannot touch for fear of being politically incorrect.
At some point, sooner than we care to admit, something better will come along, and it won't be wearing a US flag.
I think that the T-95 may potentially be that "Abrams-plus" enemy tank we face in the future when you consider all of its improvements and enhancement packages. As long as it is not produced in significant quantitites, it will not constitute a threat. However, if they can mass produce it, we are going to want to return to a Block III type Future Combat Vehicle design with a 140mm gun to counter the T-95's 152mm gun/missile launcher and ensure penetration of the T-95's armor. There have been some recent developments in Russian armor qualities which I'm not at all sure that you are aware of that could make this tank 120mm round proof given sufficient special armor thickness. However, as they are classified, I cannot discuss or post them here.
The main battle we have to fight and win first though is to kill Shinseki's insane plan to abolish the tank fleet and replace them with obsolescent armored cars unsuitable for modern warfare and incapable of winning major wars.
radical and insane plan...replace them with armored cars, which are lightly armed and armored.
Using lightly armed and armored vehicles is nothing new. The Germans did this in the 1930s and it proved to be very effective, it even got them to Moscow in a matter of weeks. I think the doctrine is called "Blitzkreig".
Block III was pretty evolutionary, about maybe a decade ahead of the M1A1(HA). It was also giving the Army sticker shock--and that was at a lot less money than what the Abrams will have to beat.
The 140MM gun is about the outer limits of what HVAPFSDS rounds propelled by gunpowder can do...the 152 may show very incremental improvements (particularly when you plot it against the weight gain). But the 152 will set the performance level we will have to beat, and it will have to beat it convincingly.
Further serious improvement means a radically new gun, either electrothermal or pure electromagnetic. This greatly increases the load on the powerplant (for electrical power), and THAT creates a chain-reaction impact on vehicle size/weight/armor requirements, etc.
Armor--unless someone comes up with something radically new, armor is likely to get heavier for the same level of protection, and if there is a radical improvement in one area of armor protection, there may be an unacceptable tradeoff in other key areas. IIRC, the Army was concerned with the first batch of M1s because Soviet 125MM HVAPFSDS could penetrate surprisingly well, although the Chobham armor made the things ATGM-proof. This was because Chobham's first incarnation was biased towards clobbering a shaped-charge warhead--long rod penetrators (which sound vaguely smutty) weren't really an issue when the armor package was first designed, but they were by the time it was fielded.
Systems like next-generation ARENA may keep armor weight down, but they will be fabulously expensive.
Mobility--to keep the Abrams' general mobility, you're going to need a monster engine, with even stiffer fuel consumption.
The question is, when will the tank be too expensive to do its job? When will we be unable to afford enough to accomplish their missions? I happen to think that the next generation of tank tech will bring the issue into view. The generation after that, and we will either field a totally obsolete force to keep the Armor community happy (like how we kept the 1st Cavalry Division on horses into the 1940s--Ralph Peters likes to quip that "if it weren't for the US entering World War II, we wouldn't have an Interstate Highway, we'd have an Interstate Bridle Path") or we will change our conception of "armor" and how the "armor" mission is accomplished.
My money is on the former; in 1916, the Europeans reprised Cold Harbor on the Somme. We won't figure out that the rules have changed until a lean, hungry power (NOT China, IMHO--my personal money is on Japan or India) hands us our hindquarters in the next first battle.
Yeh, but you failed to mention that the largest caliber AT weapon then in common service was the Russian 45mm which had poor penetration qualities. The armored cars now being envisioned for the "medium weight" force can be penetrated by standard Russian armor piercing 14.5mm heavy machine gun ammo such as is found on all Russian BTR vehicles, which are very numerous in Russian supplied military establishments. If you think armored cars are so great, why don't you join the armored cav. The truth is they will be death traps to all those who serve in them. Contrarily, the M-1 family of tanks will continue to be well-protected and proof against most conceivable threats. Armored cars are not only unsuitable for the execution of blitzkrieg tactics. They are poorly-suited for the rigors of modern warfare and are entirely incapable of winning wars without the help of heavy tanks.
US Armor is not likely to face Russian Armor anytime soon, if ever. Kursk type battles are simply not in the cards. Besides which, America and Russia are Friends to the End.
I agree that change will not take place until we take massive losses in a future war that may well see the aircraft carrier become obselete, but not the tank. That will not happen for a couple of generations down the road until we find something capable of taking its place. Transforming the force to no protection armored cars like Shinseki is doing is just about the worst possible thing to do. The worst thing we could do would be to transform the force into an all dismounted infantry force rather than a "dismounted infantry centric" force as we are now doing.
Japan and India will not pose any threat to the US (other than perhaps a few Indian ICBMs) in the forseeable future as far as the eye can see. Japan is nuke free and will remain so for the next decade or two, at least. Communist China will be a threat, but Russia will remain the prime threat for at least the next decade and a half until China builds up its nuclear ICBM force to parity with the US at START 3 levels of 1800 or so strategic nukes. At that point, we will have two nuclear superpowers against one and we will be on the losing end of history.
It will be the US war with Communist China over Taiwan which results in the losses of a couple of our Seventh Fleet aircraft carriers from Sunburn missile attacks which will begin to show that aircraft carriers are obselete. Since that will be mostly a naval and air war (we hope), we won't have any major test of the continued viability of the MBT.
I don't agree with you that the ARENA active defense system and its successors will be "fabulously expensive". Where is your cite/support for that?
”Without them, the US army will be unable to beat even a second or third rate regional power like Iraq.”
Now for the paranoids in the audience. Won’t all those LAVs be great for urban warfare? Our military is practicing now in a city near you!
Seriously, I believe the Armor Generals and bureaucrats have enough power to keep the MBT.
Besides, America and Russia are "friends to the end."
That is what Chuckie of Child's Play fame said and look where it got his family and friends (killed).
I agree with you that American and Russian armor are unlikely to clash anytime soon. Russia only threatens Poland and the Baltics in Europe. However, Russia is no longer the conventional superpower that it once was. Its general purpose forces with the exception of elite forces have been given low priority in their defense budgets of the last several years and consequently pose a lesser threat. However, they are spending massive amounts on R&D at the expense of their current conventional capabilities and consequently have developed several weapons systems which are superior in many respects to those of the West due to the fact that we have unwisely chosen to rest on our laurels. Consequently, when their economy recovers in the next sufficiently in the next decade or more, they will be able to field the best weapons money can buy against us.
The US-Russian rivalry is no longer in the conventional arena, but in the nuclear arena where we find the US implementing radical and unilateral disarmament while the Russians maintain their strategic offensive and defensive forces for possible future use against us. Russia is still the only other nuclear superpower and the only nation capable of annihilating our country in the space of thirty minutes.
Unfortunately, our top general officers have become too politicized. The Chiefs are unwilling to risk their careers and speak out against the lunacy currently being practiced by the Clinton Administration which has gone farther to destroy the military warfighting capability of our armed forces than any enemy since at least the Empire of Japan at Pearl Harbor and perhaps in US history. They no longer have enough collective willpower or foresight to stop Shinseki's insane plan to destroy the warwinning capability of the United States Army. Rather, they focus their efforts on transforming our armed forces into a global police force suitable to fulfill the Presidential whim to involve us in every conceivable "peacekeeping" operation and civil conflict in Europe other than those that would actually be in America's interest. The Chiefs and our policymakers in the federal government are badly indeed of a wake-up call to return to sanity. I pray that the cost of this inevitable wake-up call in our future as measured in men and material is minimal, but I fear that it will be great.
Russia has nuclear landmines. Can you imagine such a thing? Want to know where they are? Anybody coming univited onto Russia's turf has to wonder that, too.
The next generation ARENA system will have to deal with LOSAT Lite (infantry-carried hypervelocity missiles) and also ATGMs that will have an evasive flight path (I'm just extrapolating some of the obvious ATGM countermeasures for ARENA-clad targets).
As for the carrier vs. Sunburn issue, in the long run (15-20 years out), the Navy is going to have to develop a new sea-based power projection system--NOT necessarily a new "ship." Again, the question is "what does an aircraft carrier battlegroup DO?" as opposed to what an aircraft carrier IS.
The next generation ARENA system will have to deal with LOSAT Lite (infantry-carried hypervelocity missiles) and also ATGMs that will have an evasive flight path (I'm just extrapolating some of the obvious ATGM countermeasures for ARENA-clad targets).
As for the carrier vs. Sunburn issue, in the long run (15-20 years out), the Navy is going to have to develop a new sea-based power projection system--NOT necessarily a new "ship." Again, the question is "what does an aircraft carrier battlegroup DO?" as opposed to what an aircraft carrier IS.
Actually, LAVs stink when it comes to urban warfare--they are vulnerable to fairly weak weapons (just because we don't have a lot of RPGs on American streets today doesn't mean we can't have them tomorrow).
The idea is laudable--make the division more deployable--but to execute it soundly is going to take a lot of work and the vehicles are going to be expensive as hell. The current plan is downright silly.
Actually, LAVs stink when it comes to urban warfare--they are vulnerable to fairly weak weapons (just because we don't have a lot of RPGs on American streets today doesn't mean we can't have them tomorrow).
The idea is laudable--make the division more deployable--but to execute it soundly is going to take a lot of work and the vehicles are going to be expensive as hell. The current plan is downright silly.
Exactly my point...However, I think the idea itself is faulty at least on the scale being implemented. I would only support it on a far smaller scale with the AGS equipping at most the 3 Marine divisions, 2nd ID, and the XVIII Airborne Corps. More than anything else, it is key that they choose a track over wheels. The track which provides all terrain mobility, is what makes a tank a tank more than any other component. A tracked vehicle would also provide the basis for a better armed and armored vehicle. Armored cars are unsuitable for armor upgrades. They can only be partially protected against small arms fire.
What I could never figure out is why the USMC went for the Abrams in 1989-90 when they could have jumped on the AGS (which they STARTED in the early 1980s as the Mobile Protected Weapon System, IIRC). They went for a vehicle that took up an entire LCAC (and LCAC-over-the-beach capacity is always getting fought over by the various factions in the MAGTF), when they could have gotten one that could've been hauled by two CH-53Es (one to haul the M-8/Level I itself, one to carry the Level III armor package) and gained a lot of vertical envelopment capability.
Are we even going to fight a WWII or Korean style war again?
The kind of weapons we have in the pipeline are going to make the next battlefield even more dangerous to living things. Perhaps so bad that survival rate will approximate zero.
What I see is a battlefield ruled by unmanned, remote controled, and AI controled vehicles. Like massed rocket launchers and mobile (air and ground) single mission explosive devices.
Command and control will be it. Protection of those centers will be paramount.
I agree. I think that the Marines would have done better to combine the AGS with the Abrams so they could bring in the AGS Level 3s first and the Abrams later to reinforce them if necessary. I have long supported (since 1993) what I called the Airmobile Armor Brigade concept which envisions airlifting an entire AGS brigade at a time far behind enemy lines to seize key objectives and cause confusion and disrupt enemy supplies and communications. Applying this concept to the 101st Air Assault division would be an ideal match.
Instead, we killed the AGS in 1995 even while the Russians copied the AGS design concept and built their own, just like they copied our gun/missile idea from the Sheridan and improved on it. The Russian version of the AGS is known as the 2S25 tank destroyer. The 2S25 weighs only 18 tons with Level 1 armor. It mounts a 125mm gun/missile launcher. It is fully amphibious, air transportable, and airmobile. It may even be air droppable. It has armor upgrades the same as the AGS. It is an excellent system.
"The idea is laudable--make the division more deployable--but to execute it soundly is going to take a lot of work and the vehicles are going to be expensive as hell."
One more problem with making the divisions more deployable – the ships needed to carry them. Desert Shield resulted in foreign flag ships being chartered as well as several ships from the strategic reserve (AKA “dead fleet”) located near Newport News being called to active duty. They had to be pulled from storage and crewed; this is time consuming and expensive. We no longer have a merchant marine capable of transporting our military. Money is spent on glamour weapons systems, and deployment is left to chance.
Oh yea – An LAV would fall easy prey to a beer bottle full of gasoline – but they do look pretty in a parade, and police departments are buying them up.
My issue with the Abrams was (a) it's a logistics hog, particularly in over-the-beach scenarios (which is why we have the USMC in the first place!), and (b) the AGS is "good enough" for most USMC scenarios involving Operational Maneuver From The Sea.
Um...that's why they want a lighter division...so they can airmail it.
Oh yea – An LAV would fall easy prey to a beer bottle full of gasoline – but they do look pretty in a parade, and police departments are buying them up.
That's hilarious! Even a Molotov cocktail could take out an expensive, hi-tech, but very lightly armored LAV! That's the American way--coming up with a low-tech solution to a high-tech problem--i.e. LAV's with federal Gestapo, Nazi stormtroopers, and ATF jack-booted thugs being used against our citizens. This new anti-tank weapon concept will give our enemies a potent weapon to use against the US successor to the tank--the LAV armored car. LAV drivers beware!
Why are we whining about a tank that hasn’t entered production and possible won’t ever be produced? Lets face it Russia is falling apart and it is mostly our fault (telling them they had to become a free market economy over night). They don’t have the money to mass produce this tank. Nor the money to arm the ones they would produce. Not to mention the fact that we own the sky and the sea that they would have to fly or sail though to get this thing anywhere near us or any thing we care about. Now how would they get this thing across the ocean? It ways 50 tons, now how many 50 ton tanks can you put on existing Russian boats. Can you even fly enough of them over to anywhere to pose a threat? Not to mention that we would blow the airplanes out of the sky. Now doesn’t an interim brigade that can go any where with in a sort amount of time start to make sense? I hope it does because if not then I don’t know a thing about tank warfare. What did the Germans use that worked so well, Blitzkrieg. The art of FAST war. This tank will fail, I bet my life the A10 (warthog) could still take this thing out. Its main gun could probably destroy it and that’s just used after the helfires and cluster bombs and such. It is a waste of time to try to make some thing invincible nothing can be indestructible, your only hope is to make some thing that’s hard to hit and will hit what tries to hit it. Like Muhammad Ali, float like butterfly and sting like a bee.
Why would they be doing this after they agreed to the modified START 2 Treaty? It appears their intentions are far from benevolent. ===
The answer is only one: China and islamic world.
You may say Russia arm them herself. But You may notice Russia NEVER sold China- tanks. What she does. She selling old model weaponry from Soviet arsenal and sametime she construcing a new toys on money from that sellings. Toys like this T-95.
You are merely echoing the tired argument that the tank is obselete when in fact the tank proved during Operation Desert Storm that it is at the very height of its primacy in conventional warfighting. This same argument has been made on and off for the last several decades almost from the tank's very inception. It is being made today despite the fact that it was in large part thank to our very nearly invincible tanks to which we owe are almost bloodless victory in Operation Desert Storm.
You rave about the tank's vulnerability to A-10s yet you fail to take note of the LAV-IIIs vulnerability to Russian 14.5mm AP machine gun fire from the BTR-60 armored car family--tens of thousands of which vehicles remain in service in OPFOR militaries today. You fail to notice the vulnerability of LAV-III to RPG-7s or even mention the fact that it can be readily destroyed with a homemade Molotov cocktail. What the futurists fail to realize is that it is not the tank, but the armored car and unprotected foot and wheeled infantry that are obselete on the lethal battlefields of modern warfare.
Your arguments against the tank are strangely reminiscent of the arguments against national missile defenses. We can't make an invincible defense against ICBMs so why try? Why save tens of millions of American lives, when in all likelihood a few score Russian warheads would still get through and a million Americans would still die? These arguments are absurd on their face. The difference between an LAV-III and a tank is principly one of survivability. While, I can destroy an LAV-III using homemade weapons readily available to terrorists and guerillas, even some 125mm tank cannon have trouble penetrating M-1 Abrams tank armor as proved in Desert Storm when some Abrams survived as many as 14 or more Iraqi tank cannon hits each.
In summary, you are correct in your statement that if you are wrong about the IAV being good, then you know nothing about armored warfare. Replacing nearly half of our tanks and tracked ICVs with the LAV-III armored car is the very height of lunacy and spells certain disaster for those poor souls still serving in the once proud US Army.
I agree with you that Russia is far wiser in its policies towards Communist China than it is given credit for. However, Russia did sell Communist China some T-80 tanks in the mid-1990s.
These are to be fully retired from active service by 2012. The decision has been made.
A lot of things can happen in 12 years. Re-starting the M-1 production line for one.
Russia will produce T-95, but with admittedly low-rate production. I am not at liberty to discuss US Government estimates of how many they will build. Russia, far from falling apart, is beginning to reunify with its neighbors in the near abroad. It is already unified with Belarus. Ukraine and Central Asia will be next. They do have the money to modernize and produce new weapons. President Putin announced an increase in the defense budget of 150% some months ago. High fuel prices have brought in tens of billions of extra income from foreign sales of Russian oil. Their arms export business is beginning to boom once again, thus providing vital funding for key weapon systems like T-95. Overall, Russia's economy remains underdeveloped, but over the past years it has been expanding at a healthy rate of growth. They are in an economic recovery.
In terms of projecting power, the Russians maintain some of the best amphibious transport craft in the world. They are known as Wing in Ground Effect vehicles. They are very fast and we have no equivalent. They can carry an entire battalion of troops with their vehicles. They also carry anti-ship missiles like Sunburns and surface-to-air missiles as well. Overall, Russia cannot project substantial power far beyond its boundaries. However, due to its strategic position in Eurasia bordering about 50 different countries, it does not need to whereas the US which is isolated from the heartland of the rest of the world's population, does.
Russia has an increasingly close alliance with Communist China, India, Iran, and North Korea and can influence world affairs through these other countries as well. Russia is still a threat, though it has never really threatened the US conventionally even when it had 200 active Army divisions during the Cold War. It is dangerous to discount the Russians and underestimate their ability to threaten, influence regional and global policy and successfully wage wars. They still retain by far the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world.
Restarting the M-1 Abrams production line? Dream on. We will be lucky to retain even half of the tanks that we have got, let alone modernize them or build more. The US has not built ANY tanks in the decade aside from a few M-1A2s mostly for export. We destroyed our ability to build tanks 4 or 5 years ago when we shut down our national tank production facilities. Actually, the last tanks will not be retired from active-duty until 2024 thanks to the protests of wiser men in our military.
IIRC, from the article I read last year, the Battle of Kursk on July 4-13, 1943 involved German Panzer tanks ... 3,000 German tanks were engaged by 4,000 Russian tanks over the 10 day engagement ... final toll was 250,000 Russian lives and 50,000 German lives ... Kursk is reportedly one of the oldest Russian cities dating back to 1032 ...
Gee, how come not one word about what the armor and ammo is made of?
Depleted uranium
How many warscapes can we contaminate with radiactive dust?
Dont waste your time telling me that depleted uranium is not radioactive.If you seriously think that is true,I dare you to go inhale it.
Personally, I think the Russkies are going to kick our buttes in the first post 2012 US-Russia war. I can see it now--our brave LAV troopers with their 25mm peashooters staring down the barrel of the T-95's 152mm gun/missile launcher only to be unexpectedly dispatched by the Russian tanks HMG AP rounds as the Russians refuse to waste a 152 round on so puny and non-existent a threat.
The Russians may miscalculated. Their rounds may go through our new vehicles so easily that they may do little damage. Of course, they could always compensate for that with a heavy machine gun.
Russia has an increasingly close alliance with Communist China, India, Iran, and North Korea and can influence world affairs through these other countries as well. ==
Sir if Russia selling someone their old-model weaponry of 80th from former soviet arsenals then it doesn't mean an alliance. Russia selling for US DOLLARS. You see my point?
Russia would like to build mutual ABM system with America. Russia opposes only strategic disbalance. If Russia's interests will be honored then Russia will be truly ally of US like it was many times in past.
Your Kursk tank numbers are inflated. A fascinating affair but also a classic example of how a politician can completely defeat a genius Field Marshall on his own side. Fair warning for those politicians planning our next tank armored battle.
I'm afraid that we have a mix of tactical-strategic thinking on this thread. We have witnessed 8 years of PCness by which we should not wage total war therefore we WILL not equip our army to win total war, from the Clinton(s)/Gore "socialist brain trust".
We will face a new American generation's Pearl Harbor-Bataan because this nation is not prepared to think about total war; it damn sure will not prepare for one theater total war, much less two or three.
Our warrior class has learned little from its setup in Somalia. Our warriors died as step-child shock troops and were, well, simply mustered out as the brass got brassier. After all, don't "volunteers" ask for "it"?
Our nation must decide if it's voting majority wants its government to focus on whether our nation is a sovereign super power through its own will or its financially secure retirement "promise" is subsidiized by the now present "imported" work force's general fund tax base and imported consumer goods. Don't ask the now divorced soccer moms to pay for future, winning, war capacity.
Competent heavy lift-rapid/prolonged response infrastructure is not in the budget because it is unPC. In peacetime, an extra contract or two for 10,000 body bags is far easier to fund.
Russia only opposes strategic imbalance when the other side is more powerful. In this case, Russia has the strategic advantage with more powerful offensive nuclear forces and a potent national missile defense system as well. Accordingly, they are understandably reluctant to give up their strategic advantage if the US builds NMD as well.
Russia has an advantage in strategic forces? Here is an article on FR which say otherwise. These forces are pretty equal. Amount of american warheads even bigger. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3af0ce31067d.htm
About tanks. Are you sure that it is Russia who sold T-80s to China? Because it cann't be during SU time. And Russia doesn't sell tank to the countries she borders with. Russia even didn't sell one tank to neiboring CIS countries.
In same time few of T-80s was left behind in hands of some CISs. And Ukraine producing now thier own version of T-80. Name: T-84. That version Ukraine selling to Pakistan. But you know everything what go to Pakistan maybe come out in China.
My reports (books) say that it was Russia that sold the T-80s to China. However, for the purposes of our discussion, I am willing to admit that it might have actually been Ukraine that sold them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |