American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:42:56 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
> <_mwryder.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> The same argument could be used for battleships.
>
> Not really - battleships were replaced by carriers because a carrier
> plus airgroup could do what a battleship did, but from much further
> away. So far you've offered up no replacement for the tank, only
> counter-measures. Until there's a replacement, the counter-measures
> will have to uttery dominate before they make the tank useless.
>
Since my crystal ball is not working I don't know what will come along
that may replace the current MBT. When the first dreadnoughts were
built there weren't any aircraft, much less aircraft carriers, yet in
less than 100 years the last battleship was retired. The battleship was
still superior to an aircraft carrier and its air wing in some missions
but was too expensive to keep around just for them.
Maybe a light AFV with a good missile launcher and smart missiles,
something like an update Sheridan could fill the role of a MBT without
requiring the expense of building and maintaining.


>> Using remotely
>> launched guided missiles, such as those using a periscope mounted on the
>> rotor of an Apache you can keep tanks out of an area without them being
>> able to respond. I think that tanks are only useful when you have
>> superiority on the battlefield, otherwise it is a war of attrition and
>> resupply, much like the Yom Kippur war. There are only a limited number
>> of battlefields where they can be useful, in jungles like Vietnam they
>> are confined to the cleared roads and become prime targets for ambushes.
>> The enemy is not going to let you use your expensive artillery
>> carriers in the way they were designed for if they can avoid it.
>
> Again, you seem to assume the side with tanks has nothing else.

In Vietnam tanks were used sometimes for convoy duty, not the job they
were designed for. Almost all of the combat was infantry vs infantry
with the some artillery and air support. In a lot of SE Asia, South and
Central America, and Africa the same is going to be true. The only
theaters the tanks is really usable in is the Mideast, Europe, North
America, and parts of Russia where there are plenty of roads or clear
terrain for them to maneuver in. When their visibility and
maneuverability is lowered they become much easier targets.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2006 15:36:09 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I was thinking of unguided rockets, salvo fired to wreak havoc with any
> >CIWS system on a tank, so I'm willing to accept that most of them won't
> >hit anyway.
>
> That sounds like you'd only get a couple of shots per payload, which
> means a rather heavy logisitcs footprint.

I see them as a way to wear down CIWS systems. If opposing tanks lack
CIWS systems, then a smaller number of larger, more accurate
rockets/missiles is better.

> This looks like the sort of extra system that you
> bolt on for a particular mission, and not something you'd consider a
> primary system.

Right, not a primary weapon.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:31:45 +1300, Rupert Boleyn
<rboleyn.TakeThisOut@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>On 9 Mar 2006 01:52:21 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> The FFAR is an unguided rocket, and requires an aircraft as a launch
>>> platform.
>>
>>Actually, no.They could be mounted in trainable pods on the sides of
>>tank turrets. I'll point out that the AMX-13 could carry ATGMs on
>>launch rails on both sides of it's turret, so in theory unguided
>>rockets aren't impossible.
>
>A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
>comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
>worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.

dunno if i can entirely agree with that rupert. those pods were able
to mount onto helo's as well as fast movers like the f104's (who but
canucks would be insane/desperate enough to use a 104 for ground
attack and a helo isn't likely to be moving very fast at all when
it fires one of them. as for less accurate they did have a listed
range of about 3-4 times that of the conventional he ffar's in use at
the time. i would guess the tactic would be to ripple off 3-4 of them
at a target with a fair hope of scoring a hit.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On 9 Mar 2006 11:52:12 -0800, "Bill J." <nolabab DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> On 9 Mar 2006 01:52:21 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab DeleteThis @yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The FFAR is an unguided rocket, and requires an aircraft as a launch
>> >> platform.
>> >
>> >Actually, no.They could be mounted in trainable pods on the sides of
>> >tank turrets. I'll point out that the AMX-13 could carry ATGMs on
>> >launch rails on both sides of it's turret, so in theory unguided
>> >rockets aren't impossible.
>>
>> A not-insignificant amount of the velocity of one of those AP FFARs
>> comes from the launching aircraft's speed. Lose that and they are
>> worse than tank gun rounds, and less accurate as well.
>
>IIRC, the AP FFARs are also used on the Apache helicopter, which does
>not always move at high speed toward its targets.

think those are heat rounds not the kinetic penetrators the canucks
used. the canucks were the only ones listed as using them by the
Jane's.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On 9 Mar 2006 15:36:09 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab RemoveThis @yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I was thinking of unguided rockets, salvo fired to wreak havoc with any
>CIWS system on a tank, so I'm willing to accept that most of them won't
>hit anyway.

That sounds like you'd only get a couple of shots per payload, which
means a rather heavy logisitcs footprint. Also, if the launchers are
outside the armour (likely for a multiple tube system unless the
vehicle is very big) they're vulnerable to much lighter weapons than a
tank's gun would be. This looks like the sort of extra system that you
bolt on for a particular mission, and not something you'd consider a
primary system.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn RemoveThis @paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:38:43 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>>IIRC, the AP FFARs are also used on the Apache helicopter, which does
>>not always move at high speed toward its targets.
>
>think those are heat rounds not the kinetic penetrators the canucks
>used. the canucks were the only ones listed as using them by the
>Jane's.

A 2.75" HEAT warhaed is somewhat small by today's standards. I recall
tham as being 120mm rockets armed with a KE penetrator like those of a
tank gun. The RNZAF used them when we still had our strike wing (A4K
Skyhawks) as anti-shipping weapons because they were unguided, and
thus fire-and-forget, and their velocity was sufficient that there was
no chance of a ship evading them, even if they were fired from just
over the horizon (from a reasonable altitude, after which the plane
would dive rapidly to get back under the horizon). I doubt even a
couple of hits would sink a modern warship, but they'd quite possibly
mission kill it.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn DeleteThis @paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:33:11 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>dunno if i can entirely agree with that rupert. those pods were able
>to mount onto helo's as well as fast movers like the f104's (who but
>canucks would be insane/desperate enough to use a 104 for ground
>attack

The Italians, for one.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn.RemoveThis@paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:15:22 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Maybe a light AFV with a good missile launcher and smart missiles,
>something like an update Sheridan could fill the role of a MBT without
>requiring the expense of building and maintaining.

Or maybe not. I'm not saying the tank's irreplaceable, just that I
don't consider it at all certain.

>In Vietnam tanks were used sometimes for convoy duty, not the job they
>were designed for. Almost all of the combat was infantry vs infantry
>with the some artillery and air support. In a lot of SE Asia, South and
>Central America, and Africa the same is going to be true. The only
>theaters the tanks is really usable in is the Mideast, Europe, North
>America, and parts of Russia where there are plenty of roads or clear
>terrain for them to maneuver in.

Or north Africa, central west Africa, much of east Africa, and much of
southern Africa.

>When their visibility and
>maneuverability is lowered they become much easier targets.

And yet they proved very useful in France, and Germany, and neither
countries are all open rolling plains. Heck, if you don't care about
the state of the town afterwards tanks are useful in built-up areas,
too. They require more and closer infantry support, but they are still
very useful.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn DeleteThis @paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:57:38 +1300, Rupert Boleyn
<rboleyn.RemoveThis@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:38:43 GMT, forkliftramp.com
><Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>>IIRC, the AP FFARs are also used on the Apache helicopter, which does
>>>not always move at high speed toward its targets.
>>
>>think those are heat rounds not the kinetic penetrators the canucks
>>used. the canucks were the only ones listed as using them by the
>>Jane's.
>
>A 2.75" HEAT warhaed is somewhat small by today's standards. I recall
>tham as being 120mm rockets armed with a KE penetrator like those of a
>tank gun. The RNZAF used them when we still had our strike wing (A4K
>Skyhawks) as anti-shipping weapons because they were unguided, and
>thus fire-and-forget, and their velocity was sufficient that there was
>no chance of a ship evading them, even if they were fired from just
>over the horizon (from a reasonable altitude, after which the plane
>would dive rapidly to get back under the horizon). I doubt even a
>couple of hits would sink a modern warship, but they'd quite possibly
>mission kill it.


interesting in that the horizon has got to be 12-15 miles away from a
jet skipping barely over the waves. seems a long way for an unguided
weapon to reach out. probably the best way to mission kill a modern
warship would be some kind of radar homing frag warhead. a blind
warship is just a target to be serviced at your leisure after all.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 17:03:02 +1300, Rupert Boleyn
<rboleyn DeleteThis @paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:15:22 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
><_mwryder DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Maybe a light AFV with a good missile launcher and smart missiles,
>>something like an update Sheridan could fill the role of a MBT without
>>requiring the expense of building and maintaining.
>
>Or maybe not. I'm not saying the tank's irreplaceable, just that I
>don't consider it at all certain.
>
>>In Vietnam tanks were used sometimes for convoy duty, not the job they
>>were designed for. Almost all of the combat was infantry vs infantry
>>with the some artillery and air support. In a lot of SE Asia, South and
>>Central America, and Africa the same is going to be true. The only
>>theaters the tanks is really usable in is the Mideast, Europe, North
>>America, and parts of Russia where there are plenty of roads or clear
>>terrain for them to maneuver in.
>
>Or north Africa, central west Africa, much of east Africa, and much of
>southern Africa.
>
>>When their visibility and
>>maneuverability is lowered they become much easier targets.
>
>And yet they proved very useful in France, and Germany, and neither
>countries are all open rolling plains. Heck, if you don't care about
>the state of the town afterwards tanks are useful in built-up areas,
>too. They require more and closer infantry support, but they are still
>very useful.

ran across a book one time by a cav officer who served in nam and they
got far better use of their tracks and tanks than anyone thought
possible when they first arrived. they found they were able to
operate much more freely than they had thought possible so they found
their role expanded beyond road escorts etc.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 18:34:42 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>interesting in that the horizon has got to be 12-15 miles away from a
>jet skipping barely over the waves. seems a long way for an unguided
>weapon to reach out. probably the best way to mission kill a modern
>warship would be some kind of radar homing frag warhead. a blind
>warship is just a target to be serviced at your leisure after all.

At ~1500 m/s velocity for the rocket a ship doesn't get to move far.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn RemoveThis @paradise.net.nz>
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

Or one could spend some money on covert ops...

A lone operative with proper training inside enemy territory could
possibly cause as much havoc, chaos and demoralisation of the enemies
general public as a tank.

With a hundred operatives divided into small independent groups
dispersed through a country and with no communication between groups
(by being unaware of the others) planted inside enemy territory over a
10 year period and with orders to stay hidden until aggression on the
homeland...

Why is all the war discussions of rec.games.frp.gurps about how the
battle-fields will look? Why is the Covert Ops, the "dirty, evil terror
and guerilla" kind of warfare always overlooked?

How large (covert) army does it take to keep NYC, LA and Miami blacking
out once a week/month while major newspapers get ananymous letters
about the disruptions of power will end when the US pulls out of
country X?

A country got to have -completely- closed borders with a very good
system of monitoring it's own populace to have a chance against covert
ops.
Not even during (with risk of misspeling) the McCartney-Era was the US
immune against russian spies, despite the rampant paranoia...

There by not said that covert ops is the be all of millitary might.
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting) 

PhoenixPaw wrote:
> Or one could spend some money on covert ops...

Or, most likely, one could spend money on both.

> A lone operative with proper training inside enemy territory could
> possibly cause as much havoc, chaos and demoralisation of the enemies
> general public as a tank.

But the tank looks better on the 10 o'clock news.

> Why is all the war discussions of rec.games.frp.gurps about how the
> battle-fields will look?

Because that's what most of the posters are interested in.

> Why is the Covert Ops, the "dirty, evil terror
> and guerilla" kind of warfare always overlooked?

Because that's not what most of the posters are interested in.

Brandon
 >> Stay informed about: American Tanks of the 21st Century... (late C21 setting)