Defence review - Battle tanks - any need for them?
Discussion
Ayahuasca said:
A similar study was carried on weapons (muzzle loading) recovered from the Gettysburg battlefield. An astonishing proportion had been loaded more than once, some half a dozen times, without being fired! A theory was that soldiers went through all the motions of shooting, without actually shooting. Other theories are available.
Likely that inexperienced soldiers were experiencing misfires, but due to the volley firing (noise, smoke) they weren't aware they were misfiring (obviously a lack of recoil being missed).
Evanivitch said:
Ayahuasca said:
A similar study was carried on weapons (muzzle loading) recovered from the Gettysburg battlefield. An astonishing proportion had been loaded more than once, some half a dozen times, without being fired! A theory was that soldiers went through all the motions of shooting, without actually shooting. Other theories are available.
Likely that inexperienced soldiers were experiencing misfires, but due to the volley firing (noise, smoke) they weren't aware they were misfiring (obviously a lack of recoil being missed).Ayahuasca said:
One other theory is that the soldiers trained the load drills without fitting a percussion cap. In the heat of the moment their trained muscle memory took over and they kept failing to fit the caps.
Ouch! But I guess given that we're talking about the time we're talking about, the level of education prior to service and level of training during service, that's probably not at all surprising!Re: Drones. I don't see anything that a drone can do that an attack helicopter can't do at this time. The benefit of a drone being cost and expendability. The downsides being control infrastructure and lack of capability (how many sensors are you going to out on a drone to find your target?)
They are currently, and will continue to be a huge part of the modern battlefield (Ukraine showed their effectiveness as a STA asset for mass artillery), and militaries will adapt to their presence (like not taking pot shots at every drone that flies over, this giving your position away), but I don't see heavy armour becoming any more obsolete than when shaped charges, ATGM and attack helicopters all came into presence.
Still takes boots to hold ground.
mikal83 said:
RizzoTheRat said:
mikal83 said:
And to expand on that, why do we have an air farce when the Fleet Air Arm can do both, land and sea!
Do the Fleet Air Arm have any fast jets yet? RizzoTheRat said:
mikal83 said:
RizzoTheRat said:
mikal83 said:
And to expand on that, why do we have an air farce when the Fleet Air Arm can do both, land and sea!
Do the Fleet Air Arm have any fast jets yet? Tanks are absolutely essential to winning a conventional war.
Likewise armoured vehicles.
Combined arms warfare is also essential, So using armoured vehicles, infantry, artillery, air power in a synchronised and collaborative manor. Unfortunately, western forces have been a bit slow in developing mass drone capability, which has become another aspect of modern warfare.
If anyone has any direct questions, my current speciality is tank destroying with missiles, so I'm reasonably up to date with the subject.
Likewise armoured vehicles.
Combined arms warfare is also essential, So using armoured vehicles, infantry, artillery, air power in a synchronised and collaborative manor. Unfortunately, western forces have been a bit slow in developing mass drone capability, which has become another aspect of modern warfare.
If anyone has any direct questions, my current speciality is tank destroying with missiles, so I'm reasonably up to date with the subject.
matthias73 said:
Tanks are absolutely essential to winning a conventional war.
Likewise armoured vehicles.
Combined arms warfare is also essential, So using armoured vehicles, infantry, artillery, air power in a synchronised and collaborative manor. Unfortunately, western forces have been a bit slow in developing mass drone capability, which has become another aspect of modern warfare.
If anyone has any direct questions, my current speciality is tank destroying with missiles, so I'm reasonably up to date with the subject.
When were we last engaged in 'conventional' warfare though, the Falklands?Likewise armoured vehicles.
Combined arms warfare is also essential, So using armoured vehicles, infantry, artillery, air power in a synchronised and collaborative manor. Unfortunately, western forces have been a bit slow in developing mass drone capability, which has become another aspect of modern warfare.
If anyone has any direct questions, my current speciality is tank destroying with missiles, so I'm reasonably up to date with the subject.
Evanivitch said:
yellowjack said:
Colour me cynical, but the claim in this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdHvfUDPV4
...that the CT-40 cannon on Ajax could fire a 'Smart Fire' burst consisting of a point detonating round to defeat up to 8.3" of reinforced concrete, followed by two air burst rounds through the same hole sounds fanciful at the very least!
Can any vehicle mounted (unguided) weapon system ever be quite that accurate? Or does the point-detonating round just make a massive hole in the target?
Most modern gun systems would do that in ideal conditions, good met data, good round temperature, good boresight.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMdHvfUDPV4
...that the CT-40 cannon on Ajax could fire a 'Smart Fire' burst consisting of a point detonating round to defeat up to 8.3" of reinforced concrete, followed by two air burst rounds through the same hole sounds fanciful at the very least!
Can any vehicle mounted (unguided) weapon system ever be quite that accurate? Or does the point-detonating round just make a massive hole in the target?
Will it do it in real-world conditions? By fluke probably.
The CT40 airburst is a nifty round, be interesting to see it used in a ground role and an aerial role.
Evanivitch said:
Ayahuasca said:
One other theory is that the soldiers trained the load drills without fitting a percussion cap. In the heat of the moment their trained muscle memory took over and they kept failing to fit the caps.
Ouch! But I guess given that we're talking about the time we're talking about, the level of education prior to service and level of training during service, that's probably not at all surprising!Re: Drones. I don't see anything that a drone can do that an attack helicopter can't do at this time. The benefit of a drone being cost and expendability. The downsides being control infrastructure and lack of capability (how many sensors are you going to out on a drone to find your target?)
They are currently, and will continue to be a huge part of the modern battlefield (Ukraine showed their effectiveness as a STA asset for mass artillery), and militaries will adapt to their presence (like not taking pot shots at every drone that flies over, this giving your position away), but I don't see heavy armour becoming any more obsolete than when shaped charges, ATGM and attack helicopters all came into presence.
Still takes boots to hold ground.
https://youtu.be/ndFKUKHfuM0
matthias73 said:
eccles said:
When were we last engaged in 'conventional' warfare though, the Falklands?
Well arguably the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent s
tshow was the last conventional war fought and that was less than 20 years ago.eccles said:
That was the point in my original post which was quoting another post.
Without meaning to wade in for someone else and respond for them! There are scores of cases where hardware wasn't ordered or developed 'because that isn't way things are going'. Guns on aircraft - 'Noooo, why have guns? Missiles are capable enough!' Vietnam taught otherwise.
Armour on tanks. 'Modern HEAT makes armour irrelevant - let's just not bother in future!' That kind of fell flat on it's face.
Fighter aircraft. 'Why have fighters when missiles will make them obsolete?' Cue quite a bit of aviation-related stupidity in this country in the early Cold War. (Arguments to be made whether such stupidity would have occurred anyway without that flawed excuse to cover it.)
Carriers. 'We don't need to project force outside of areas that cannot be covered by land-based aircraft.' Falklands-style operations showed that up.
Mine-resistant vehicles. 'Snatch Land Rovers were great in NI - they'll be plenty good enough anywhere else in counter-insurgency!' Hmmm...
The above are all gross oversimplifications but the principle is clear... Never say never.
With Russia trying to reboot Cold War 2.0 I would possibly say that it would be better to have an armoured force and never need it than not having an armoured force when you really DO need it. Remember than tanks are (relative to certain other defence shenanigans) relatively cheap, effective and versatile - what can really replace them in terms of a physical presence on the ground?
LandRoverManiac said:
eccles said:
That was the point in my original post which was quoting another post.
Without meaning to wade in for someone else and respond for them! There are scores of cases where hardware wasn't ordered or developed 'because that isn't way things are going'. Guns on aircraft - 'Noooo, why have guns? Missiles are capable enough!' Vietnam taught otherwise.
Armour on tanks. 'Modern HEAT makes armour irrelevant - let's just not bother in future!' That kind of fell flat on it's face.
Fighter aircraft. 'Why have fighters when missiles will make them obsolete?' Cue quite a bit of aviation-related stupidity in this country in the early Cold War. (Arguments to be made whether such stupidity would have occurred anyway without that flawed excuse to cover it.)
Carriers. 'We don't need to project force outside of areas that cannot be covered by land-based aircraft.' Falklands-style operations showed that up.
Mine-resistant vehicles. 'Snatch Land Rovers were great in NI - they'll be plenty good enough anywhere else in counter-insurgency!' Hmmm...
The above are all gross oversimplifications but the principle is clear... Never say never.
With Russia trying to reboot Cold War 2.0 I would possibly say that it would be better to have an armoured force and never need it than not having an armoured force when you really DO need it. Remember than tanks are (relative to certain other defence shenanigans) relatively cheap, effective and versatile - what can really replace them in terms of a physical presence on the ground?
I was responding to someone who said in conventional warfare you need tanks, I countered when was the last time we were engaged in conventional warfare.
As an aside, yes weapons change over time.
eccles said:
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.
I was responding to someone who said in conventional warfare you need tanks, I countered when was the last time we were engaged in conventional warfare.
As an aside, yes weapons change over time.
Big tank battle in Iraq iirc I was responding to someone who said in conventional warfare you need tanks, I countered when was the last time we were engaged in conventional warfare.
As an aside, yes weapons change over time.
Ridgemont said:
I am not military or particularly knowledgable but when I saw this a year or two back I did think that the concept of aerial warfare had just had a paradigm shift moment: Perdix Drone Swarm. No idea if it’s (due to be) operational.
https://youtu.be/ndFKUKHfuM0
But what's the end effect?https://youtu.be/ndFKUKHfuM0
They're 6 inch drones so I don't suppose they can carry much HE (maybe collectively). What ability to they have to identify a target? How robust is the Comms tech that allows them to swarm?
I think it'll have a use, but I don't think we need to do anything too revolutionary to neutralise that in a warzone.
Those flying over an civvie airfield, different issue entirely.
matthias73 said:
We've got an armoured door kicking around that we did a weapons effect shoot on. 1 foot grouping at 1500 metres, and that's with a 30mm rardon.
I also know blokes from the gunnery school that will tell you they can put three rounds down on a 30km/h moving target in a Scimitar, can't say it's impossible, but not always easily repeated!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff