Fiddle's Green

[Panther Al]

APCs in general, are nothing more than battle taxis - move in, drop off the infantry, then get the hell out of the way.
The weapons are really just there to support the infantry, preferably from hull down positions out of man portable AT range. Firing ports when they exist are there for emergency short range defensive fire - they're not an offensive feature no matter how much one my wish otherwise. Infantry fighting while still mounted is a recipe in my opinion for disaster. The strength of infantry lies in their ability to disburse and use the terrain for cover and not be all taken out in one rocket strike.

Yes, there are times staying mounted is preferable, such as rapid movement across the battlefield, or to close on an enemy strongpoint (provided there's no AT capability there), but all in all, they should be viewed as little more than transportation combined with mobile and direct fire support.

Note that there are some exceptions to the rule, but not all that many of them...

Remember even MBTs don't expose themselves unless absolutely necessary, and their armour is MUCH thicker than an APC or IFV.

Agreed: The IFV in my mind is a evolutionary dead end: Enough Firepower that it requires that the oppo's pay attention to it, and not enough armour to survive that attention. This is one thing that I love about the latest Israeli Merk Based H-APC. Its more mobile than the tanks they support, and armoured as well, if not better than, the tank in which it is based on. Which allows, for the first time, for a infantry unit to survive a mounted attack on a prepared position or small town. Tanks in a support by fire role, from a nicely hull down point to either side of the axis of attack, and the H-APC's running right for the point of attack. No matter how much suppressive fire you bring down, there is always going to be ATGW's that will survive, and they will always pop the IFV's when they attack - so the infantry would have to go in on foot, and soak up the causalities, where as the Namer will be able (and has in fact done so) soak up what fire is brought to bear till it reaches the debus point, allowing intact infantry formations to be brought to bear on the exact points needed.

[dragoon500ly]

Couple of things:


If it is a brigade scout platoon, its less cav than it is pure localized recce - whats over the hill in front of us, around the corner, and maybe the next town. DivCav squadrons - the lowest level of unit to be designated Cavalry - is focused on what will effect the division itself: Whats in the next town, how is the route to it, and the counter-recce mission. The only time it is supposed to get in a knock out drag out fight is in the counter recce role, as well as being able to make short work out of anything it stumbles into - but not to go out and look for trouble. Where as the scout platoon would be best mounted in light vehicles like the humvee, DivCav would be well suited to riding into battle in Light Armoured Vehicles. Enough armour to handle small arms fire, fast and light to take full advantage of the road network, and able to run off road almost as good as a tracked vehicle with enough firepower (In the MPGS) to deal with any small units it bumps into. And they wouldn't dismount except to form OP's: Most if not all of the recce they would do would be done mounted, for DivCav operates forward of the main line of battle, and they need the mobility to do the job.

It was always recognized that the DivCav Sqn was incapable of screening the division's entire front and flanks. Its mix of two ground and two air cav troops are an almost classic case of "too little, too late". According to the various manuals, the division's recon role had to be closely coordinated with the battalion's scout platoons in order to provide the most basic coverage. During the 1980s/90s, there was a lot of talk of boosting the DivCav Sqn up to three ground and three air troops or adding a full ground cav squadron and a full air cav squadron to the division.

It was also recognized that a pure M-3 troop simply didn't have the firepower to take on a Soviet Regt Recon Company. The Soviets had started adding a tank platoon to reinforce the usual BRDM/BMP mix. This is when the Army started experimenting with adding a Abrams platoon. Desert Storm saw several different mixes of DivCav. You had M-1/M-3, straight M-3, and even HMMWV/TOW, HMMWV/AGL and HMMWV/HMG. Of these, the M-1/M-3 worked the best.

Corp level cav is in the form of the ACR. These have to be heavy: These form the same role German Gepanzart Aufklarungsschwadrons had in the second world war. One is to provide a corp level recon element, that had the strength and firepower to fight its way through (And by this, it is understood that its more a case to allow them to slip through, not destroy units holding the line) the enemies front line, and to operate in the backfield performing a level of recon that straddles the border between strategic and tactical levels, and then return to friendly lines. The second, is as a form of corp level fire brigade - a compact reserve force that can be committed as a hip pocket formation that is fully contained within itself, and doesn't need corp level assets to perform whatever mission is assigned to it. In this mission, the Stryker - or any similar vehicle for that matter - doesn't have the firepower or protection to pull it off. Which is why converting the ACR's from its heavy formation of Abram's and Bradley's is a huge mistake in my opinion.


As to armour isn't good at hiding, goes to show you haven't dealt with sneaky SOB tankers. The M1 is very good at sneaking and peaking. Better than the Bradley oddly enough - the Abrams is very quiet, lower, and has much better optics. While, and I said this earlier, the Stryker has a huge advantage, even over the very quiet Abrams, in the noise it generates - to a point, you still have that noisy diesel. I've personally snuck up to the back of a Brad in an Abrams, close enough to where the first they saw me was when my tube snagged the tarp hanging off of the back of it. I could have nudged the troop door closed, but I didn't trust my driver that much that close to another vehicle. I have *never* seen a CVC thrown so hard, so far, in my life.

The M-1 is one of the most quiet tanks in service, the turbine can rarely be heard much beyond 100 meters. On numerous field exercises, M-1s could get closer to red force units than Bradleys or even M-113s. When the Abrams first reached Germany, it earned the nickname "Whispering Death"...bestowed by the Canadians who were surprised at every turn by the speed, agility and near silence of the Abrams.

Stryker may have a use in a Peacekeeper role, but when the Army makes the decision to gut the Armor Force in favor of large numbers of a glorified RV....its only a matter of time before troops will pay the price.

[Panther Al]

I knew they was talking about adding to the divcav, but never twigged onto the exact reasons. Still and all, the doctrine was there, the ability wasn't is pretty much about sums it up



And as to the last bit, thats the biggest gripe I have: It seems that once again, the army has forgot rule one of armoured warfare: It takes a tank to kill a tank. Missiles are good, but they are not perfect. Towed Guns was awesome, but they couldn't maneuver, and when mounted on a light chassis (MPGS anyone) couldn't hang when real tanks showed up: A real tank can survive a near miss, or a glancing hit; A Stryker (Or Centaro, Rookiat, whatever) can't.

While everyone swore by Tank Destroyers (US because we believed in the Doctrine, Russians and Germans because they had to mount as many big guns as they could)in the second world war, if you would note, that once the lessons was learned, there was no more: It was accepted - finally - that tanks and only tanks could kill other tanks on a reliable basis.

[Legbreaker]

What about track noise
I'm yet to find a single tracked vehicle that doesn't clank and squeal every time it moves an inch. Might be able to sneak up on other vehicles with engines running, but on infantry I just can't see it....

[Panther Al]

Oh, thats there alright: Track Noise is what usually gives it away in the end. Depends on what is going on around you when we are sneaking up. In the case I mentioned, while the brad I snuck up on wasn't running, both the gunner and BC was listening to what was being sent out on the radio - and I doubt what noise they heard registered as a tank trying to sneak up on them - after all, what you expect to hear shapes a lot of what you do hear. Other times, the sound of a running humvee would mask the noise up till about a 100 feet or so. Of course, a quiet day or night, you would hear us about a 100 yards out, but still and all.

[Legbreaker]

So in other words, the Bradley crew were not paying attention and had headphones interfereing with their ability to hear
Sort of drives home the need for an infantry screen doesn't it.

[Panther Al]

Oh absolutely. Also helps to pay attention to your dismount who is waving and yelling that something was behind them.


Smart Dismounts, ones who know the job they are there for, and willing to it is much rarer than one might wish.

You might have one, or the other, but rarely do you get both.

[dragoon500ly]

I knew they was talking about adding to the divcav, but never twigged onto the exact reasons. Still and all, the doctrine was there, the ability wasn't is pretty much about sums it up

That's it in a nut shell. The solution used in Germany during the 1980s was to add twelve M-113s carrying GSR teams, except that they were only of use at night or in bad weather. Not that the Soviets had any sort of radar detection equipment....

[dragoon500ly]

What about track noise
I'm yet to find a single tracked vehicle that doesn't clank and squeal every time it moves an inch. Might be able to sneak up on other vehicles with engines running, but on infantry I just can't see it....

On a M-1, the worst noise makers are the brakes, especially when the driver slams them on. They can easily be heard 3-400 meters off. The tracks, on hard ground, can also be heard, but at less than half the distance of the brakes. On soft ground, the M-1 is like a cat (as long as the driver lays off the brakes!). Sneaking the tank took some coordination between the TC/driver, but it was done on a routine basis.

The other big contender was the Leopard II. It was coming into service during my last tour and we had fun running circles around it! Compared to a M-1, it was not as fast and not as agile. In the various "unofficial" races, a 2ACR M-1 loaded with crew, full equipment and 40 rounds of main gun would leave a Leo II, with just TC and driver, basic equipment and no ammunition, eating its mud on every bit of terrain from hard-surfaced roads to mud trails (and when the Leo II bellied out, the M-1 came back and pulled it out...LMAO!)

The M-1 has better fire control and night sights than the Leo II. The only feature that the Leo had that I would loved to have was the TC sight. Once the gunner was lased to target, the Leo TC could search for another target, lock on and lase and as soon as the gunner was finished, hit a switch and the turret would move to align with the TC's target, it shaves 2-3 seconds off during a gunnery.

[Panther Al]

You know, always wanted to get up close to a leopard but never got the chance. I was always impressed by them- the latest versions more so. I am curious though how the latest version matches up to the M1A2.

[dragoon500ly]

You know, always wanted to get up close to a leopard but never got the chance. I was always impressed by them- the latest versions more so. I am curious though how the latest version matches up to the M1A2.

Gunnery wise, at least from what I've heard over the years, the M-1A2 still beats the Leopard II. But this reflects more on where the Leo II is designed to fight, since Europe rarely has areas where you can engage at 2,000+ meters, the Germans see the ability to get off the first shot as more important than engaging at the earliest possible moment. Both sides have merit, but as to who is right...

With the latest uparmoring of the Leo II, its agility is significantly below that of the M-1. I've read articles in some of the various journals, that while the US is considering replacing the turbine with a diesel, that the Germans are considering going with turbines, go figure.

[Panther Al]

Gunnery wise, at least from what I've heard over the years, the M-1A2 still beats the Leopard II. But this reflects more on where the Leo II is designed to fight, since Europe rarely has areas where you can engage at 2,000+ meters, the Germans see the ability to get off the first shot as more important than engaging at the earliest possible moment. Both sides have merit, but as to who is right...

With the latest uparmoring of the Leo II, its agility is significantly below that of the M-1. I've read articles in some of the various journals, that while the US is considering replacing the turbine with a diesel, that the Germans are considering going with turbines, go figure.

That's not all that surprising, though I have heard talk of a 1650hp MTU pack being bandied about. What's really making me wonder though is the 55 calibre barrel the latest marks sport: how does that effect theoretical long range gunnery

[pmulcahy11b]

That's not all that surprising, though I have heard talk of a 1650hp MTU pack being bandied about. What's really making me wonder though is the 55 calibre barrel the latest marks sport: how does that effect theoretical long range gunnery

Longer caliber = greater stabilization of the round before it leaves the barrel and greater muzzle velocity = longer range.

[Panther Al]

True enough: But only if there is enough propellent to make use of the longer barrel. I am tempted to say that there is judging by the muzzle flash I've always seen, but...


I don't know for certain.

[Panther Al]

I really really wish I still had a copy - or knew where to find again - a collection of studies done in the early 70's on performance of (then) current tank main guns compared to the second world war. I think it was done by the germans - 90% certain of this - and it came to some interesting conclusions.

If memory serves - I am not about to try to recall specifics - the conclusion was that the Soviets, then and now (again, Now refers to the early 70's through out) are still lagging significantly behind the west, due mostly to propellent issues. (Some thing they still have issues with even in 2011.) Unsurprisingly, the rate German cannon of the Second as on the whole vastly superior to the others, which to be fair, is mostly true. They further said the only guns the allies had that actually performed to standard was the US 76mm and the British 17 pounder - they was amazed that neither army type standardized on them instead of issuing them piecemeal. Another interesting conclusion was that the infamous 88 of Tiger 1 fame was actually not as good as everyone thought. It was actually, for its size, underpowered. Much like the US 90mm tank gun. And the only reason the L48 75mm guns of the Mk 4's was so much better than the allied guns, was because the allied guns by and large left a lot to be desired. The true winners of the period was the 7.5cm Kwk42 L/10 and the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 - and the KwK42 was the better of the pair due to ammo size - much easier to handle KwK42 rounds then the incredibly long KwK43 rounds.

But here is the funny thing. They ran the numbers and compared them to the western standard L7A1 - which the considered one of the best cannon designs ever, high praise from the Germans - and if you gave the KwK 42 modern ammo, and modern sights, it performed very close to the L7A1 - and the KwK43 even closer. In fact, it was theorized, that if you gave the KwK43 a smoothbore, and use fin stabilized ammo, it would actually outperform the L7A1 with the original ammo developed at its induction - mainly because of muzzle velocity. Now, by the 70's, and certainly by the 80's and 90's ammo for the L7A1 has improved by leaps and bounds making this comparison rather moot. Why this caught my eye is I think this might have been one of the pushes that gave Rheinmetall the idea to develop the 120mm Smoothbore of fame and legend - from it being a smoothbore, as well as perhaps the idea to make the rounds light and compact by using combustable cases.