I know it sounds a little old fashioned..
..but what about bringing back the infantry support tank? Rather than spend large sums of money on APC's with IFV level firepower- and which according to SODs law- will be used as "fancy-dress" tanks (and more than likely get their arses kicked) wouldn't it be better to get a run-of-the-mill APC with appropriate armour (active and passive) and get as many troops as possible into it (i.e., 2+12?). Their infantry could debuss at the assembly area after which the APCs would be deployed as logistics resupply vehicles (ammo, food, etc. and mobile medical "taxis"). To escort dismounted troops over the departure line and onto the objective one could deploy a platoon (say per coy) of BMPT type vehicles (IMO, the badder-arse/ass version of the US MGS). They've got the armour protection needed, are armed to (and beyond:D) the teeth and would be easier to manage than an entire coy (13+) APCs/IFVs (+ attachments). One BMPT could be attached per platoon with one at HQ or together or whatever, METT-TC dependant. Their Attaka-T missles have HE and FAE variants. Never been too sure about the utility of sponson mounted 30mm GMGs, but why not? You've got a vehicle that can do FIBUA, desert warfare, light/infantry support and could even act as a strongpoint defensive position all by its lonesome!:cool: Sure, it's tactical height is a minor drawback (it also easily qualifies as a HVT) but then again so do most IFVS/AVs, deployment, well trained (and crafty) troops and doctrine should prevent any mishaps barring an enemy armed with standoff smart missiles (then again, I'm sure there's room on the BMPT for a local area anti-missile turret like that twin 7.62mm MMW guided TAMS thingy Marconi developed back in the late 90s). Must... stop....am .....drooling...
I think METT-TC and proposed usage dictate ewuipment requirements.
However, the trend at the end of WW II was to avoid light tanks and go for what today are sometimes called main battle tanks. The Infantry Support Tank is effectively a light tank...
Like the Begleitpanzer with a 57mm gun and missiles of the mid-70s shown below. Last time I checked, 120mm trumped 57mm...
Your well trained and crafty troops are the problem -- those are rare commodities. Most Armies field a few such plus a large number of marginally capable elements. One should buy equipment predicated on misuse and worst case; military purchases or planning based on best case will put you in Afghanistan with little possibility of succeeding in many announced goals. :D
I never cease to be amazed at the amount of equipment and the number of weapons dreamed up by fertile if inexperienced minds in the Engineering and Marketing worlds that end up being a system looking for a role or conversely that are really unsuited to fulfill the role for which they were nominally designed (generally as a result of poor doctrine or specifications; often both). Most Armies are terribly naive about buying such stuff.
All those who wish war would disappear may be inadvertently made happy.
I don't think given the cost of equipping today anyone's going to be able to afford to go to war... :wry:
In Viet Nam, the cost to equip an infantryman was about $500.00 -- today, it's approaching almost 100 times that. Ten thousand dollar rifle sights, thousand dollar individual radios for everyone and six plus million dollar tanks are just a bit on the heavy side... :rolleyes:
Forgive my attempt to play architect/engineer/armor combat developer online
Although I did attend junior college for 18 months before enlisting believing I would be an architect. Still live in the smallish house I designed and had built in '86. But I'm admittedly that guy with lots of ideas that are not always realistic or experience-based. Nevertheless:
COA 1: Design a 4-man armored pod that is hydraulically lifted onto the back of both GCV and Abrams. That exploits the multitude of current infantry system designs that don't carry 3+9 troops. More importantly, it reduces weight of the partially armored GCV to below 80,000 lbs to get 2 on each C-17. The pod and GCV would be V-shaped with troops facing the middle. With an elevated V-hull, part of the GCV floor could be a trap door allowing troop dismount under the vehicle during direct fire or artillery airbursts or when the pod is still attached...or pass through into the pod and exit its rear.
But also envision the squad leader directing GCV commanders to drop pods with one fire team in one location and the remaining fire team 50 meters further forward or laterally. Also use the pod as an OP, vehicle checkpoint, or guard station with cover. The split squad would ensure that either an RPG, sabot, or IED explosion did not kill/wound the entire squad. The ability for Abrams to carry the same pod would be ideal for urban and complex terrain environments. Engine heat would need to be ducted away from the pod and insulation added, obviously, but sure beats slat armor to protect the engine...and troops.
Perhaps the pod would also have an APU and extra water (could cool off Abrams exhaust heat transfer)/storage space under the V-hull to keep in stable on the ground. A small optionally-manned ATV or Class I UAS could be stored in back when no pod was attached. The same hydraulic platform or forklift arms that lifted the fire team pod, also could lift 120mm rounds and elevate the pod when crossing a gap where it otherwise might bottom out behind the tank/GCV. Abrams pods without troops inside could carry additional fuel. The same hydraulic platform could lift dirt to fill HESCO bastion or support a line-charge pod for minefield breaching.
COA 2: Design a diamond-shaped GCV to exploit angled-armor advantages and allow a CROW or manned cupola in the center with troops still having room to sit around it in a hexagon shaped interior. The driver, vehicle commander, and engine would face the front in the hexagon with fire teams along the hexagon side next to them, and dual side-opening doors (for cover) exiting out the rearish angled side with a second engine and more troops seated against the rear of the hexagon interior. Add large wide wheels on the front and rear with tracks in the middle to allow tires to be inflated to lift tracks off the ground on roads. Dual engines and tracks or wheels would be a back-up drive systems in the event an IED knocked out either.
COA 3: Keep and improve the Bradley's armor. Add the same armored pod to the rear of it, or use an M-ATV to carry the additional fire team. An M-ATV can be made optionally manned and lead Bradleys/Abrams when mines or IED are suspected. Plus theirs that COIN and stability ops thing.;)
You must've led a sheltered life, Pete...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but the first time I heard the acronym METT was when I was at the advanced course in '81 or '82.
Us dumb Grunts were using it before Viet Nam and heavily while in that lovely country. I was teaching it to Armor Officer Basiec Course Students in 1976.
Quote:
...about the time the Bradley was being fielded, too late for it to be applied to the vehicle's basic concept.
My recall differs, as I said but even if the mnemonic had not been in common use, all those principles were studied and used by Soldiers for centuries before Omar Bradley was born, much less development of a vehicle bearing his name began -- as you said. ;)
Quote:
If METT had been in use in '78 when I attended OCS and the basic course I probably would have heard it then.
One would think... :confused:
Quote:
When I learned it the letters stood for mission, enemy, terrain and troops, with weather and time also being considerations; TC must have been added to it after my time in service.
The original was METT, as you say. The third 'T' was added after you went to the Advanced Course, IIRC. The 'C' was added after 2001 as far as I know.
Quote:
I'm only saying this because in many threads here I see the acronym being applied retroactively to situations that existed before it came into general use.
It's just shorthand for this---> " ...Of course the principles it stands for have always been there."
That's due to the fact that we Queens need memory aids
to remind us to eat. Now, if we had the superior intellects of all you Kings, we wouldn't need such artifices... :D
We're still wrestling with OCOKA / COKOA, corridors vs. compartments, topographic vs. military crests and dead space vs. terrain masking -- and with Pigs... :eek: