Armored Fightning Vehicles MK III

[Sharpnel]

Oh, the poor little Merkava.

[Charlie 6]

A kick-stand!

[Kidd]

What do you do when the target's too close and modern tanks don't get hull-mounted MGs no more? Well, this is 1 way to solve it: step on the gas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqAQnABnCY

What is that round antenna on the MRAP/APC in front by the way, anybody know?

[Feenix74]

Could be CREW Duke antennas (https://www.srcinc.com/what-we-do/ew/crew-duke.html) but hard to tell due to distance and low-res.

[ColBosch]

What do you do when the target's too close and modern tanks don't get hull-mounted MGs no more? Well, this is 1 way to solve it: step on the gas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqAQnABnCY

What is that round antenna on the MRAP/APC in front by the way, anybody know?

Good work by that crew! We used to joke about having a "driver's table" when going to the range ("Driver! Infantry! Right track, engage!") but sometimes it really does help to be in a giant armored beast of a vehicle.

[CDAT]

What do you do when the target's too close and modern tanks don't get hull-mounted MGs no more? Well, this is 1 way to solve it: step on the gas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WqAQnABnCY

What is that round antenna on the MRAP/APC in front by the way, anybody know?

You use the Claymores that you 100mph taped to the front and sides of the tank.

[Matti]

You use the Claymores that you 100mph taped to the front and sides of the tank.

Ooh! That's like, straight from the scifi stuff: Hammer's Slammers

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Ooh! That's like, straight from the scifi stuff: Hammer's Slammers

Or Battletech.  But I think they'd work better than A-Pods.

[CDAT]

Ooh! That's like, straight from the scifi stuff: Hammer's Slammers

Or Vietnam.

[ColBosch]

What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.

[DoctorMonkey]

What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.

So the best anti-infantry weapon an armoured fighting vehicle can have is to be part of a well trained all-arms team with infantry and artillery and air and everything else supporting them


In the same way for infantry the best weapon is the same team


We have a culture that still makes us look for the individual and the hero but so many of our best work is done though good team-working - it's the same in my field as I am sure it is in fighting

[Sharpnel]

Or Vietnam.

From where David Drake draws his military experience, having served there in his military career. IIRC.

[Weirdo]

So the best anti-infantry weapon an armoured fighting vehicle can have is to be part of a well trained all-arms team with infantry and artillery and air and everything else supporting them


In the same way for infantry the best weapon is the same team


We have a culture that still makes us look for the individual and the hero but so many of our best work is done though good team-working - it's the same in my field as I am sure it is in fighting

So the cultural ideal is the Clan Warrior, the actual ideal is the FWLM? :)

[DoctorMonkey]

So the cultural ideal is the Clan Warrior, the actual ideal is the FWLM? :)

I'd have said a Davion RCT  :P

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.

Speaking of which, what's the average infantry soldier's opinion of reactive armor?

[Matti]

What a terrible idea. Remember that proper doctrine is to support your armor with infantry. Strapping anti-personnel explosives to your tanks is Doing It Wrong.

Sometimes things go wrong, no matter what is strapped on the tanks. Also when things are expected to go wrong, tanks are at the point. Not just in Hammer's Slammers, but also in Vietnam & Cambodia, where David Drake was temporary gunner on a tank in thunder run through town.

[Arkansas Warrior]

No joke, I used to drill at an armory used mainly by a Cav Scout Squadron, and they had fliers pinned to one of the cork boards with pictures of a claymore zip-tied to the front bumper of a deuce-and-a-half,  a message to the effect of DON'T DO THIS! and a paragraph or two on why it was a terrible idea.

[Kidd]

Speaking of which, what's the average infantry soldier's opinion of reactive armor?

I know *I* don't want to be anywhere within 100 ft of it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXvKS7U3mWw fast forward to 1:00 for instant action.

[ColBosch]

Sometimes things go wrong, no matter what is strapped on the tanks. Also when things are expected to go wrong, tanks are at the point. Not just in Hammer's Slammers, but also in Vietnam & Cambodia, where David Drake was temporary gunner on a tank in thunder run through town.

You've read about these things in books. Some of us have lived them. Bear in mind that, whatever Mr. Drake's qualifications, his stories are fiction - anti-war fiction, no less. Furthermore, just because something was done in the Vietnam conflict does not mean that it's a good idea now, or even necessarily at the time. Strapping command-detonated mines to the outside of your vehicle might be useful in a desperate moment, but it will be a danger to your crew and supporting elements all the time.

[worktroll]

In every thing there is a season (turn, turn) ...

[CDAT]

You've read about these things in books. Some of us have lived them. Bear in mind that, whatever Mr. Drake's qualifications, his stories are fiction - anti-war fiction, no less. Furthermore, just because something was done in the Vietnam conflict does not mean that it's a good idea now, or even necessarily at the time. Strapping command-detonated mines to the outside of your vehicle might be useful in a desperate moment, but it will be a danger to your crew and supporting elements all the time.

It is not any more dangerous then any other weapon on the tank, or the tank itself. Is it a threat to the infantry? Yes, and no. Yes if they are in the path, but no if the crew and infantry are working together, same as using the WP smoke grenade launchers, or even firing the main gun. All of them can cause injury or even death to the infantry, but none of them really cause any concern to the crew itself.

[worktroll]

All of them can cause injury or even death to the infantry, but none of them really cause any concern to the crew itself.

That approach soon leads to absence of protective infantry cover. I suggest watching "The Beast" to see how much fun that can be.

[CDAT]

That approach soon leads to absence of protective infantry cover. I suggest watching "The Beast" to see how much fun that can be.

Let me see if I can clear up what I was trying to say. I was not saying that you just do it willy nilly, but more in reply to

...Strapping command-detonated mines to the outside of your vehicle might be useful in a desperate moment, but it will be a danger to your crew and supporting elements all the time.

I was saying how the Claymore is no/zero/nada danger to the crew or the tank (paint excluded) but just saying that you can not use it due to the fact that it may put the infantry in danger is also not a valid reason to not do it if it works (it does) and can be done safely for your side (it can), as right now if you pop off your WP smoke grenades from the vehicle that puts the troops in danger as WP burns troops very good/bad depending on the side you are on, and also when the main gun is fired the Sabot that flies off can kill a troop if it hits but again you are not going to not use it. So like the other items it is not the only tool, but is a tool and can be used very effectively if both the tank crew and the troops on the ground know what to expect, and how to deal. I see it more like one tank scratching the back of the other (spraying it with MG fire to take care of bad guys on top of the vehicle).

[Matti]

That approach soon leads to absence of protective infantry cover. I suggest watching "The Beast" to see how much fun that can be.

This one?

[Daryk]

I'm pretty sure he means this one.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Let me see if I can clear up what I was trying to say. I was not saying that you just do it willy nilly, but more in reply to I was saying how the Claymore is no/zero/nada danger to the crew or the tank (paint excluded) but just saying that you can not use it due to the fact that it may put the infantry in danger is also not a valid reason to not do it if it works (it does) and can be done safely for your side (it can), as right now if you pop off your WP smoke grenades from the vehicle that puts the troops in danger as WP burns troops very good/bad depending on the side you are on, and also when the main gun is fired the Sabot that flies off can kill a troop if it hits but again you are not going to not use it. So like the other items it is not the only tool, but is a tool and can be used very effectively if both the tank crew and the troops on the ground know what to expect, and how to deal. I see it more like one tank scratching the back of the other (spraying it with MG fire to take care of bad guys on top of the vehicle).

I think you're just flat wrong here.  I've never been a tanker, and therefore don't know the qualities of tank armor the way someone like Bosch does, but I do know that the claymore has quite substantial backblast, enough to kill infantry a number of meters behind it.  I suspect that the backblast is substantial enough to do nontrivial damage to the tanj's armor, and possibly even harm the crew and/or other delicate components inside the tank.

[DoctorMonkey]

In every thing there is a season (turn, turn) ...

All the way back to the First World War, people were trying to get around this - the light tanks were little more than a machine gun with rifle-round resistant armour and people tried extending the heavy tanks to put an infantry section in (the Mark V*)


PS yes, I am trying to divert attention away from the discussion about mines on tanks/vehicles etc

[CDAT]

I think you're just flat wrong here.  I've never been a tanker, and therefore don't know the qualities of tank armor the way someone like Bosch does, but I do know that the claymore has quite substantial backblast, enough to kill infantry a number of meters behind it.  I suspect that the backblast is substantial enough to do nontrivial damage to the tanj's armor, and possibly even harm the crew and/or other delicate components inside the tank.

Well you can think what you want, but you are just wrong. I was a tanker (for about 12 years), and then went to be EOD, it works.

I'm pretty sure he means this one.

Now it has been quite some time sense I last watched this movie, but if I remember correct it was not really the lack of infantry support, but more the crew not working well together. Still if you have the chance to see it I would say you should, it is not a great movie, but it a good one.

[Kidd]

Indeed. DARPA's future tank fantasy wet-dream outlandish cartoon monstrosity concept seems to bring us from Stage 6 (M1A2 SEP TUSK) back to Stage 3/4 of that comic...

[Kidd]

Sherman "Tulip" of the 1st Coldstream Guards - mounting 60-pound Tulip HESH (I think) rockets



Closeups, and more Tulips on Shermans, Firefly and Cromwell