Results 1 to 20 of 100

Thread: Mechanized Infantry Perceptions 2010

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Okay, yes--the APDS round that is not the one with a penetrator formed from depleted uranium. That is what I meant, though most can probably infer the point I was getting at.

    To your point about 25mm and inadequacy against a T-55 (or any tank for that matter), it shouldn't be employed against a T-55, so inadequacy is irrelevant. If a BMP is approaching tank weight and protection, don't bother trying to kill it with an IFV direct-fire weapon. Get a Javelin, or a tank.

    I guess you could say this goes back to gute's question about sticking with a 25mm, especially in light of the trend in BMP (and comparable AFV/IFV) protection. There is no way threat capabilities are ignored, but rather planners are looking at smarter ways to counter the threat. It also goes back to the point about trying to kill a monster IFV with another IFV. If the enemy wants to push the armor/weight boundaries, maybe we should just let them, but remain flexible with our task organization.

    Vehicles look great when they are all pristine in a glossy manufacturer's pamphlet or an edition of Janes, but in the field, amidst the muck and the mire, advertised capabilities become an entirely different proposition. There are penalties to pay with the protection.

    Ona slightly related tangent, has anyone been catching Russian-narrated videos of Syrian armor in the attack, or of the absolute havoc being wrecked on the tanks when they let their security down and the insurgents get to employ RPG-29s? Eye-opening for sure...
    Last edited by jcustis; 07-21-2013 at 06:38 PM.

  2. #2
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    Ona slightly related tangent, has anyone been catching Russian-narrated videos of Syrian armor in the attack, or of the absolute havoc being wrecked on the tanks when they let their security down and the insurgents get to employ RPG-29s? Eye-opening for sure...
    Youtube?

  3. #3
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    I watched a Youtube video of a Syrian tank hit by a RPG-29. It looked like the tank was hit on the very top of turret or the deck right behind the turret. Scary stuff. Smoke coming out of the hatches and the gun and then a flame shootin 30 feet in the air. I can't believe one dude got out or he was standing outside of the tank near the rear.

  4. #4
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    On another forum I frequent, quite a few tankers ran the vid back and forth in slow motion. They agreed that the guy seen holding his charred arms in the air to his sides was previously inside the turret area (yup, with the hatches closed). When the round hit, the detonation blew hatches open and the tanker out of the vehicle.

    The plume of fire rushing out is the propellant of the main gun's rounds burning. That's one of the design limitations of the T-72. It's going to go up like a Roman candle if that stuff is ignited, and it is susceptible to lighting because the semi-combustible cases are exposed at the bottom of the turret basket.

    That guy must have died an especially gruesome and painful death.
    Last edited by jcustis; 07-22-2013 at 12:57 AM.

  5. #5
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    On another forum I frequent, quite a few tankers ran the vid back and forth in slow motion. They agreed that the guy seen holding his charred arms in the air to his sides was previously inside the turret area (yup, with the hatches closed). When the round hit, the detonation blew hatches open and the tanker out of the vehicle.

    The plume of fire rushing out is the propellant of the main gun's rounds burning. That's one of the design limitations of the T-72. It's going to go up like a Roman candle if that stuff is ignited, and it is susceptible to lighting because the semi-combustible cases are exposed at the bottom of the turret basket.

    That guy must have died an especially gruesome and painful death.
    It blew him out of the turret? Holy Crap!

    Do you mind mentioning the other forum? If so a PM is cool or if not I understand.

  6. #6
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    It was on Lightfighter.net. It will require joining and posting a brief introduction is preferred before posting if you ever get around to it.

    Give me a day and I'll get you the link to the discussion.

  7. #7
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Found it: http://http://www.lightfighter.net/t...43236916266323

    Most members posting to the discussion are real deal, experienced tread heads.

  8. #8
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    That guy must have died an especially gruesome and painful death.
    It amazes me he was able to was able to pick himself up off the ground, much less run for cover, given how concussed he must have been.
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    175

    Default US combat vehicle researchers stumble ... again

    http://www.army.mil/article/131126/R...mbat_vehicles/

    Operational and tactical mobility could be improved by reducing the design weight of armoured reconnaissance vehicles and early-entry AFVs. Reduction of design weight might also serve to reduce size as a target and also observability. But reducing or limiting the weight of main force AFVs reduces potential armour protection and the weight and bulk of sensors and munitions provided for combat performance and endurance.

    Looking on the bright side, researching a blanket 40% reduction in the weight of AFVs might be a usefully memorable exercise in futility.

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Since this thread has been resurrected, some good stuff in the online Journal of Military Operations lately. The last issue had an article by Jim Storr looking at armored reconnaissance (specifically the value of stealth) and Council member William F. Owen discussed the IFV as a doctrinal wrong turn in Issue 3. Both articles well worth a read, as is almost all of what they publish.

    (Added by Moderator)

    Link to cited journal, free after registration:https://www.tjomo.com/
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-06-2014 at 09:52 AM. Reason: add link

Similar Threads

  1. Infantry Unit Tactics, Tasks, Weapons, and Organization
    By Norfolk in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 306
    Last Post: 12-04-2012, 05:25 PM
  2. Mechanization hurts COIN forces
    By Granite_State in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 142
    Last Post: 11-22-2010, 09:40 PM
  3. Infantry accompanying load carriers
    By Compost in forum Trigger Puller
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-10-2010, 05:06 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •