Author Topic: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III  (Read 240914 times)

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13243
  • Reimu sees what you have done.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #870 on: 24 October 2017, 00:28:21 »
Playing with doctrinal stuff.  French tank platoons run four LeClercs and four VBLs for security and infantry support.  Compared to the American style of pure tank units, what would the advantages and disadvantages be to having your support infantry right there in the platoon with the armor?
IMO a lot of SEasia's lack of emphasis on cavalry forces is just the terrain.. a lot more jungle, forests, rugged mountains, swamps, wetlands, and other terrain where armored cav just doesn't do as well as the main offensive force.
This does dictate what kind of terrain my fictional army clearly fights in, namely 'it's almost all tank country' - so lots of rolling open terrain, farmland, low hills, that sort of thing.  Relatively light on the mountains and forests, so...Nebraskansas.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

The Eagle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2318
  • This is what peak performance looks like!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #871 on: 24 October 2017, 08:00:33 »
While American armor units are mostly organized as pure formations -- there are a few examples of "Combined Arms Battalions" in some divisions; I used to drive past one from 4th ID at Fort Carson every day -- at the operational level, American armor goes nowhere without some sort of attached infantry, and they don't normally deploy to a combat theater without first conducting integration training with the unit they've been task-organized with first.  So tactically, there won't be a huge difference between American and French platoons in this instance.
RIP Dan Schulz, 09 November 2009.  May the Albatross ever fly high.

Hit me up for BattleTech in the WV Panhandle!

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40871
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #872 on: 24 October 2017, 08:50:31 »
While I'm certain American training leads to good coordination in combined-arms missions, I'd imagine keeping them together like that means French troops would merge together seamlessly. (I wonder if the infantry are trained to help their tankers break track and such, get the job done faster?)

The downside would be that if one half is ever forced to deploy without the other(likely the infantry), they may run into trouble if their instincts lead them into situations that they could handle easily...when supported. I'm not implying that French infantry are always going to fight as if there's a tank behind them, just that instinctual reactions can be hard to break out of, especially in stressful situations like combat.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #873 on: 24 October 2017, 09:26:34 »
French tank platoons run four LeClercs and four VBLs for security and infantry support.
French tank companies used to run a socalled "peloton d'appui direct" which consisted of a single VBL and three VAB with 20mm turrets used for limited air defense carrying three anti-tank rocket and three FRF2 sniper teams with a total of 15 dismounts. Secondary function of these 15 men was to be able to function as a replacement crew for the Leclercs. These were not at all infantry, even if they were running in infantry carriers. No infantry or VBL in the tank platoons btw.

They're apparently currently in the process of rearranging that concept towards one where the tank companies - expanded to four platoons of four, i.e. 16 tanks - are escorted by only VBL (8 total) with ATGM, HMG and such. Instead each armoured regiment receives two dedicated infantry companies (in VBCI). Target for full conversion of all armoured regiments is by 2018.
« Last Edit: 24 October 2017, 09:31:14 by kato »

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13243
  • Reimu sees what you have done.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #874 on: 24 October 2017, 10:30:46 »
French tank companies used to run a socalled "peloton d'appui direct" which consisted of a single VBL and three VAB with 20mm turrets used for limited air defense carrying three anti-tank rocket and three FRF2 sniper teams with a total of 15 dismounts. Secondary function of these 15 men was to be able to function as a replacement crew for the Leclercs. These were not at all infantry, even if they were running in infantry carriers. No infantry or VBL in the tank platoons btw.

They're apparently currently in the process of rearranging that concept towards one where the tank companies - expanded to four platoons of four, i.e. 16 tanks - are escorted by only VBL (8 total) with ATGM, HMG and such. Instead each armoured regiment receives two dedicated infantry companies (in VBCI). Target for full conversion of all armoured regiments is by 2018.
So noted for the future, re: part 1

As far as the rest, so that's each regiment of four tank companies (64 tanks) or are they introducing a battalion system?  Two companies of infantry along with four companies of armor?

Also, there's another question.  What's the 'minimum' you'd want for infantry to tag along with a tank "lance" anyway?  Using the battletech definition since there's too many names in the real world.  If you had tanks on the advance, or providing security, what do you really want to have around?  (besides the obvious "as many as I can get/trade/beg/borrow/steal/kidnap/blackmail")
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #875 on: 24 October 2017, 10:37:36 »
There is definitely something to be said for knowing where an invader's heavy tanks will be slowed down or stopped while yours will be just fine.
Indeed. Here in the SEA we also spend a lot of time looking at the local terrain, and figuring where foreign attackers may be bottle-necked... and how we can ambush them by putting OUR tanks in "impassable" terrain where they wouldn't be expected. Placed well, a few tanks can do wonders - wire-guided ATGMs can get snagged in undergrowth, top-attack ATGMs and Apache-launched Hellfires might strike jungle canopy.

Fascines date all the way back to pre-medieval castle sieges but still have a use today...





While I'm certain American training leads to good coordination in combined-arms missions, I'd imagine keeping them together like that means French troops would merge together seamlessly.
They apparently train to work very 'modularly' - they try their best to ensure any infantry, armour and support battalion should be capable of working with any other French battalion they are paired with, so they can pull scratch brigades together on the fly. I'm sure we can all tell the pros and cons of that. But its impressive to me nonetheless.

Instead each armoured regiment receives two dedicated infantry companies (in VBCI). Target for full conversion of all armoured regiments is by 2018.
I always love reading about this stuff, and I especially want to read more about the French methods which IMVHO seem bluntly practical. Got any web sources you can point me to?

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #876 on: 24 October 2017, 13:08:58 »
As far as the rest, so that's each regiment of four tank companies (64 tanks) or are they introducing a battalion system?  Two companies of infantry along with four companies of armor?
Standard French armoured regiment under 2018 target:
  • Command and Staff Company (2 Leclerc + about a dozen VAB)
  • Tank Company (16 Leclerc + 8 VBL)
  • Tank Company (16 Leclerc + 8 VBL)
  • Tank Company (16 Leclerc + 8 VBL)
  • Mechanized Infantry Company (12 VBCI + 4 VPC command version + several VBL + 2 81mm mortars + 2 Milan/MMP)
  • Mechanized Infantry Company (12 VBCI + 4 VPC command version + several VBL + 2 81mm mortars + 2 Milan/MMP)
  • Mixed Engineer and Artillery Company (about a dozen VAB GENIE for two combat engineer platoons and VAB VOA for a artillery observer platoon)
  • Reconnaissance Company (13 VBL - omni layout, 2-4 variable-sized platoons set up as required for recce or antitank)
  • Reserve Company (security forces)
For the tank companies that means the fourth company was dissolved and reattached as platoons to the other three companies.

Infantry Regiments are moving to a similar five-combat-company-plus-combat-support layout, with 82 VBCI/VPC in those regiments overall (or similar numbers of VBMR for the future Scorpion brigades). The VBCI for the armoured regiments apparently come from those left over after the remaining 8 mechanized infantry regiments are filled, with 98 extra ordered.

What's the 'minimum' you'd want for infantry to tag along with a tank "lance" anyway?
Most default layouts attach as minimum one infantry company to three tank companies.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13243
  • Reimu sees what you have done.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #877 on: 24 October 2017, 14:27:29 »
And the artillery company is observers, not actual tube/rocket units inherent to the regiment.

I suppose the 3-2-3 format would work pretty well, you'd have a pretty big regimental command staff though.  So from this they're keeping the VBL 'escorts' for the armor with the extra HMGs and ATGMs, integral to each company, with two separate mechanized infantry companies to back that up.  It's a lot of mixed capability, and I suppose if it's a train-together-deploy-together force it'd work, but it seems pretty heavy on the coordination requirements.

With an older timeframe (as stated, maybe 1972) would similar arrangements of forces be effective?  You're not dealing with the modern communications and control, so would such a mixed "do it all regiment" make sense or should it be more homogenous, and not having the armor bring their pet infantry along?
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #878 on: 24 October 2017, 15:07:28 »
I suppose the 3-2-3 format would work pretty well, you'd have a pretty big regimental command staff though.
It's basically a 3-4-5 concept. They even rearranged the reconnaissance company to fit the "3 combat section" principle, which nearly halved its numbers.

What should be notable is that at company level they're forfeiting the usual command section with its own tanks or infantry carriers. The tank companies really only consist of 4 platoons with 4 Leclerc, the infantry companies of 4 platoons with 1 VPC and 3 VBCI.

Each of course has a command section, the infantry also a platoon-sized heavy weapons section (with those 81mm and MMP); these sections however now ride around in VBL, P4, VLRA trucks and a couple leftover VAB. There's plans to switch these over to VBMR-L (4x4, armoured, around 10-14 tons), yet to be procured, sometime in the first half of the next decade in line with a required VBCI update planned for 2023.

So from this they're keeping the VBL 'escorts' for the armor with the extra HMGs and ATGMs, integral to each company, with two separate mechanized infantry companies to back that up.  It's a lot of mixed capability, and I suppose if it's a train-together-deploy-together force it'd work, but it seems pretty heavy on the coordination requirements.
It's really based around the French GTIA (Tactical Combined Arms Group) concept - under which the regiment would not deploy in full anyway. Compared to previous concepts it's a train-as-you-fight constellation insofar as the GTIA would no longer have to be mixed from multiple battalions. Heavy GTIAs usually number two infantry and one tank company (example: Lebanon) or three tank and one infantry company (example: GTIA4 for Mali, serving as heavy response force, not deployed) and are thus more battalion-sized.
The left-over staff of the regiment's command element after formation of a GTIA would take the remaining forces under command.

With an older timeframe (as stated, maybe 1972) would similar arrangements of forces be effective?  You're not dealing with the modern communications and control, so would such a mixed "do it all regiment" make sense or should it be more homogenous, and not having the armor bring their pet infantry along?
It's basically a 3-4-5 concept, 3 combat sections each in 4 combat platoons each in 5 combat companies each per regiment.

They did already try to run it quite similar back in the early 80s, although restricting themselves to a 4-4-4 layout back then (typically with a single infantry company attached to three tank companies as tank battalions, or the other way around as mech inf battalions). That was dropped sometime in the 90s.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #879 on: 24 October 2017, 15:16:12 »
I'd go as far as to say I would like to attach an armour squadron (company strength unit) to an infantry battalion (of three "rifle" companies, a support company of recce troops, mortars etc and an HQ).


I'd divide up the armour regiment (battalion strength unit) into a squadron per infantry battalion in the brigade and use the armour regiment HQ as either a "spare" battlegroup HQ or to lead the recce/"cavalry" forces.


I see armour as mainly being a support to the infantry and a force like the above can always detach some of the infantry to form a rear guard or a screen or just to rest.


I'd also like quite a lot of artillery and am tempted by the self propelled 120mm mortars that are floating around now, like the AMOS.
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #880 on: 24 October 2017, 15:16:30 »
And the artillery company is observers, not actual tube/rocket units inherent to the regiment.
It's named an artillery platoon since in the French Army, artillery observers always used to be a recce component of artillery battalions. Basically, each artillery battalion had a company of 12 VAB VOA which, in platoons of 4, would be reattached to the three combat battalions of a brigade; these are now embedded under permanent command instead.

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2418
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #881 on: 24 October 2017, 16:09:51 »
I'd also like quite a lot of artillery and am tempted by the self propelled 120mm mortars that are floating around now, like the AMOS.
AMOS was buried around 2008.

The only comparable system actually realized is NEMO (of which the Saudi Arabian National Guard has 36; Slovenia cancelled its contract). Sweden itself is instead now procuring Mjölner - the 1990s forerunner concept to AMOS -, which is basically a CV90 with a rather weird looking superstructure with two regular manually-loaded mortars built into it.

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #882 on: 24 October 2017, 16:45:24 »
AMOS was buried around 2008.

The only comparable system actually realized is NEMO (of which the Saudi Arabian National Guard has 36; Slovenia cancelled its contract). Sweden itself is instead now procuring Mjölner - the 1990s forerunner concept to AMOS -, which is basically a CV90 with a rather weird looking superstructure with two regular manually-loaded mortars built into it.


Boo


120mm mortar makes sense - lots of bang because it's low velocity - but it needs to be vehicle mounted


Back to hoping the British Army gets some M777s
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

CDAT

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 301
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #883 on: 24 October 2017, 20:42:42 »
Playing with doctrinal stuff.  French tank platoons run four LeClercs and four VBLs for security and infantry support.  Compared to the American style of pure tank units, what would the advantages and disadvantages be to having your support infantry right there in the platoon with the armor?This does dictate what kind of terrain my fictional army clearly fights in, namely 'it's almost all tank country' - so lots of rolling open terrain, farmland, low hills, that sort of thing.  Relatively light on the mountains and forests, so...Nebraskansas.

I was a tanker before I went EOD, so my information may be a bit dated (when I left tanks we had M1A1's) but the US Army pure tank units is mostly a peace time training thing to make it easier to train them all the same. When you go to combat you swap units with the others in your Brigade (BDE) and make the Battalion in to Task Force, and most companies will become teams. So using my old battalion as an example. Peace time we had (only talking combat equipment/major support units) four Line companies (A-D) and a Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC). Each line company had three tank platoons (four tanks each) and a headquarters section (two tanks each) giving them fourteen tanks. HHC had the S shops, Scouts (we had ten turtle back Hummers, but some had six M3 brad's), Mortars (six mortar tracks 120mm is the current standard), Medics (one M577 battalion aid station, and four M113 ambulances), and Battalion Headquarters (one tank section of two). This gave them fifty eight tanks, six to ten scouts, six mortars, and the medical section.
When we went to War we traded from A and C Companies one tank platoon for one infantry platoon, and B company two tank platoons and the headquarters section for two infantry platoon and a headquarters section. In addition we got added to us one Engineer company, one artillery battery, and one scout troop. The Engineer company had three line platoons and an Assault and Obstacle (A n O) Platoon, the line platoons were made up of three squads and a headquarters team each in a track (M113A3's), The A n O platoon had two sections Assault made up of two Combat Engineer Vehicles, and four Armored Vehicle Launched Bridges (AVLB) normally two of them had bridges and the other two had Mine Clearing Line Charge (MICLIC), and Obstacle that had two dozers, two M548 with volcano mine dispensers in the back, and four small emplacement excavators (SEE Truck). The artillery battery had three platoons of guns but as I never saw them (saw their handy work, and it is impressive) I can not say for sure how many (I think six, as I heard that number but is that for the platoon or for the battery I do not know). The scout troop had one command section of one M1A1, and one Brad, also two hunter killer team of four M1A1's and six M3 brads each. So this gave them fifty one tanks, twenty nine brads (a mix of infantry and scout versions), ten scout hummers, six to eighteen? M109's (as I said I am not sure on the numbers here as this is the only part I never directly work with), six mortars, twelve engineer tracks, fourteen engineer vehicles, and the medical section.
My BDE at the time had two tank battalions, two infantry battalions, one scout squadron, one artillery battalion, one engineer battalion, one transport battalion, one support battalion, one MASH, one MP platoon, and one ADA platoon. When deployed the artillery, engineer, and scouts were broken up and tasked out to the combat battalions.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13243
  • Reimu sees what you have done.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #884 on: 24 October 2017, 21:29:10 »
Fascinating stuff.  Thanks guys.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12049
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #885 on: 24 October 2017, 21:34:34 »
i've found this book a handy reference. it is dated and probably was a bit inaccurate on some details when written, but it would probably be a decent foundation for further research, at least if you are writing fiction.
Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25977
  • Need a hand?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #886 on: 24 October 2017, 23:09:14 »
I remember reading that in high school.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #887 on: 25 October 2017, 03:59:08 »
i've found this book a handy reference. it is dated and probably was a bit inaccurate on some details when written, but it would probably be a decent foundation for further research, at least if you are writing fiction.
Armored Cav: A Guided Tour of an Armored Cavalry Regiment


I've got that book


The information is quite dated as the unit was still really there to be a gap-plugger for the Fulder Gap while the larger (Division+) forces got up to speed


It was very tank heavy
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

The Eagle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2318
  • This is what peak performance looks like!
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #888 on: 25 October 2017, 07:23:17 »
Unfortunately, it's no longer applicable.  Both the 2nd and 3rd ACR have been swapped over to Strykers, and lost their integral aviation squadrons in the process.
RIP Dan Schulz, 09 November 2009.  May the Albatross ever fly high.

Hit me up for BattleTech in the WV Panhandle!

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #889 on: 25 October 2017, 10:35:32 »
In number of posts on past 2 pages have been mentioned heavy tanks. Haven't main battle tanks replaced them all by now?
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40871
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #890 on: 25 October 2017, 11:04:32 »
For purposes of this discussion, you can probably use the two terms interchangeably.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #891 on: 25 October 2017, 11:07:56 »
Matter of preference, but here's my take: "Main battle tank" is a role, and an ill-defined one at that. "Heavy tank" is a weight class. Also one man's meat is another's... appetiser I guess; different countries' "MBTs" are of different weight classes. So I prefer using the latter :D

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #892 on: 25 October 2017, 12:39:25 »
In number of posts on past 2 pages have been mentioned heavy tanks. Haven't main battle tanks replaced them all by now?

My own take on it is that there are several things to bear in mind about this

I don't think there's been a heavy tank in use since the 1960s

Going back a looooooong way, the first tanks were pretty heavy and were first deployed by the Heavy Battalions of the Machine Gun Corps of the British Army
People then made smaller tanks and these got called light tanks so then you have a Heavy/Light split

Time ticks along and then by WW2 you have two ways of dividing tanks - by weight or by role. The role classification was something done due to the lack of either mechanical capability or balanced weapons to all a fast, adequately armoured vehicle with a gun that could both act as an effective anti-armour and anti-infantry (ie high explosive) weapon. You ended up with infantry tanks which were slow and heavily armoured and had machine guns or guns optimised for high explosive shells (low velocity, high calibre) and cruiser tanks which were fast, thinly armoured and had guns optimised for anti-armour work (high velocity, small calibre like 40mm). The other division was into light (often paper thin armour and machine guns only), medium (generally the cruiser tanks) and heavy (generally the infantry tanks) tanks.

There was a great deal of "inflation" in size over the course of the war and then afterwards the M26 Pershing was reclassified as a Medium Tank from being a Heavy Tank. The first MBT also came along towards the end of the war, the Centurion which combined good all terrain mobility, strong armour and a top-notch gun capable of both HE and AP work. There were still some heavy tanks in use in the late WW2/early Cold War era but their extra weight made them less useful than an MBT as they were so limited in terms of logistics, how few bridges they could actually use etc (eg the British Conqueror tank).

In the modern era, a medium tank is one which is lighter than an MBT but also less capable; a light tank is harder to differentiate from a medium tank to be honest and a heavy tank is non-existent (although at 70 odd tonnes for a full combat load Challenger 2 or M1A2 one wonders what something heavier would look like!). I guess the Merkeva might be a heavy tank but really it's an MBT.

First World armies would tend to have MBTs and light tanks (even if they aren't called that like the Scimitar CVR(T) or M3 Bradley).
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #893 on: 25 October 2017, 14:34:22 »
Let's see what Wikipedia says.

M103 heavy tank, in service up to 1973, and weight isn't much different from Abrams




T-10 heavy tank, in service up to 1996




Centurion; a MBT as said




T-54 & T-55, as I understand it, are officially medium (weight class) tanks, but also fill the criteria for main battle tank (role)




PT-76 amphibious light tank is still in service




FV101 Scorpion looks whole lot like a light tank, but is officially a reconnaissance vehicle




And then are whole lot of wheeled armoured fighting vehicles that could be argued to be tanks with wheeled motive system...
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10206
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #894 on: 25 October 2017, 14:38:49 »
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #895 on: 25 October 2017, 14:44:01 »
oh, in terms of organisation, here are some links to British Army details


http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0013.html - the British Armoured Infantry Brigade


http://www.armedforces.co.uk/army/listings/l0014.html - the British Armoured Battle Group and Company Group
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

DoctorMonkey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2583
  • user briefly known as Khan of Clan Sex Panther
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #896 on: 25 October 2017, 14:48:01 »
oh, and I can dig out and photograph/scan some of the org charts from the Tom Clancy Armored Cav book if anyone is interested


also, I was clearly wrong about the heavy tanks being from a long past era
Avatar stollen from spacebattles.com motivational posters thread

ChanMan: "Capellan Ingenuity: The ability to lose battles to Davion forces in new and implausible ways"

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #897 on: 25 October 2017, 15:39:44 »
Not Exactly the same thing, but here is a cool infographic of your average US Marines MEU. It's from 2016 so it doesn't have the F35 anywhere, but they pretty much just replace the Harriers.



Also, if you really love the minutae of military organization and doctrine, go seach for "Commander's quick reference Amphibious Warfare Handbook". It is the source for that image and has a whole mess of information on the US Marine's organization and equipment. You should be just about ready to manage an amphibious invasion if you manage to read through the whole thing!

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25977
  • Need a hand?
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #898 on: 25 October 2017, 16:22:53 »
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.

One of the main reasons for that is the steel armor.  Modern armors enabled tanks like the Abrams to bring down the mass without compromising protection.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Kidd

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III
« Reply #899 on: 25 October 2017, 16:34:09 »
King Tigers of German Army in WW2 were more massive then Tanks today, with the Tank Destroyers based off the King Tiger were larger still, with a 128mm gun.
I think the Western tanks of today can match them once fully-loaded with ERA blocks, armour inserts, etc.