Author Topic: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)  (Read 72711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7245.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 281,442
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #50 on: July 26, 2013, 19:21:52 »
..........because that's easier than trying to pretend three old tankers don't know their gunnery ;)
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Old EO Tech

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 435
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2013, 19:29:24 »
..........because that's easier than trying to pretend three old tankers don't know their gunnery ;)

Also something I was not implying  :o

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #52 on: July 26, 2013, 23:26:17 »
Before this devolves into a bunfight, we are speaking about hypothetical future capabilities here.

For accurate long range and semi indirect tank shooting, there are currently through tube missiles like LAHAT and various Russian offerings for their 125mm canons. The Korean Army has a guided top attack round for their K2 tank:

Quote
The KSTAM (Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition) is a fire-and-forget, top-attack anti-tank munition with an effective operating range of 2–8 km, developed specifically for use with the K2. It is launched as a kinetic energy projectile, fired from the main gun in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving onboard millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets. When a target is acquired, an explosively formed penetrator is fired from a top-down position, to exploit the weaker top armor of tanks. Target acquisition can also be directed manually by the tank crew via a remote-link. These characteristics allow the launch vehicle to remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy, or provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.

And the US Army spent a lot of time and energy pioneering these techniques (Through Tube Missiles were invented in the 1960's for the Sheriden and M60A2 tanks, and TERM [Tank Extended Range Munition] was developed through the 1980's), although never widely adopted. There is a possibility of the US either redeveloping these sorts of rounds for themselves, or purchasing them from allies like Israel or Korea.

These sorts of munitions will become more common and cheaper as time progresses, and I can see Tanks or AFV's carrying rounds of this type in the future to provide more options for the crew commander and the combat team commander (with some sort of battlefield networking there is the possibility of getting every tank into the fight even if they cannot see the targets with their own sights usig these sorts of rounds).

For a hypothetical Hetzer II with a 105mm howitzer, the primary emphasis will be on HE or HESH to destroy hardened targets like bunkers and light AFV's, but a few smart rounds could add another arrow to the quivver if needed. A "Universal" platform might not have a cannon, but STRIX 120mm mortar rounds or top attack missiles like the TOW 2, Bofers BILL, SPIKE or Javelin ATGM (among others) provide accurate IF capability vs hard targets, and in the case of a mortar, the 120mm warhead will do a lot of damage to other targets as well. If the "Universal" platform includes a light tank (like the CV90120), then smart rounds increase the utility and survivability of these vehicles.

So long range indirect fire capabilities not only exist now, but can be markedly enhanced with smart ammunition.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Online Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 32,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 726
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2013, 02:14:09 »
Creating a weapon that can kill things at long range has never been a problem. The choke point lately has been finding the target. The Russian 10km range tank launched weapons are radio guided, which means they are limited by line of sight, and for practical purposes didn't really outrange TOW 2 -- because it was hard enough to find 4km of line of sight on any normal battlefield.

The world isn't a pool table, and your enemies will try to hide. We have always said that time spent in recce is seldom wasted, but that extends to the fact that resources spent in ISTAR are seldom wasted. If you can't find the enemy, then all the long range weapons in the world are useless to you. Discussions about future weapons have to include discussions about future sensors. And in my experience, developing long range sensors seems to be often overlooked. The JUSTAS program has been ongoing for 13 years, but still hasn't delivered a UAV or a sensor. :(

Offline Nerf herder

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 25,046
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,057
  • The usual suspect.
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2013, 05:44:23 »
Also, with the missile system for the T72/ 80, once the gun tube has been rigged to fire the missile, it can't fire a normal round immediately after. Kinda defeating the purpose.

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.--Ben Franklin

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion."
    -Norman Schwartzkopf

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2013, 08:11:42 »
LAHAT is laser guided, and can be used to its 13 km range with a forward observer painting the target (another tank, an infantry or artillery observer or even a helicopter scout).

The Korean smart round has multiple sensors on board, as well as a data link to the crew who can manually engage a NLOS target. TERM, as envisioned in the 1980's, was also a fire and forget top attack round but (AFAIK) without the manual link.

Spike is a FOG-M weapon, which transmits real time video to the operator through the fiber optic link and can be flown directly into the target. Other FOG-M missiles are in development.

And of course there are dozens of UAVs of all sizes and shapes that can be deployed over the battelfield to provide extra "eyes on", and I have also seen rounds as small as 40mm grenades that carry cameras and allow the local commander to pop an eye in the sky to take a look.

I suspect war in the future will resemble a deadly game of "hide and seek" where exposing yourself will likely draw fire and tactics may split between long range "fishing expeditions" and short range ambushes with high volumes of fire.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,804
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #56 on: August 01, 2013, 09:20:14 »
Gun-armed tank destroyers were a way to get a bigger gun and more armour on a chassis than would be possible if the vehicle had a turret. They were also a little easier to manufacture without a turret. They made sense for Germany in World War 2, but I don't think that they have a role today. Missile-armed vehicles can provide anti-tank capability.

I do believe that the Canadian Army does have a serious gap with respect to anti-tank capability. While the Leopards are great at killing tanks, if they are the only systems that can do that then they will get penny-packeted across a battle group. I have seen this on several virtual and real exercises over the past four years.  On a Capability Development Experiment that I participated in, for example, this led to the defeat in detail of a combat team as our tanks were spread out to protect infantry companies while the numerically equal enemy tanks were concentrated (France 1940).

It is a shame that we divested the LAV TUA. Calling on coalition resources can work for certain things (attack helos, CAS etc), but an infantry battalion needs dedicated anti-tank assets if it is going to relevant on a modern conventional battlefield.

If we don't think that we will ever face tanks (or even the threat of tanks in the hands of a local militia or an armoured threat across a border) then why have our exercises been so focused on "near peer" adversaries?
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 188,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,092
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #57 on: August 01, 2013, 13:23:54 »
It is a shame that we divested the LAV TUA. Calling on coalition resources can work for certain things (attack helos, CAS etc), but an infantry battalion needs dedicated anti-tank assets if it is going to relevant on a modern conventional battlefield.
Not just the TUA, but the hand-held AT weapons as well.  The 84mm and 66mm stuff we have now just doesn't cut the mustard.
So, there I was....

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #58 on: August 01, 2013, 13:41:33 »
I know, why don't we form a special group in each infantry unit and we can call them the "Heavy weapons Platoon" or the "Anti-tank platoon" We can use all the cool power point words to describe them; "force multiplier, user centric, dynamic and responsive" to name a few.   

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #59 on: August 01, 2013, 14:35:22 »
I know, why don't we form a special group in each infantry unit and we can call them the "Heavy weapons Platoon" or the "Anti-tank platoon" We can use all the cool power point words to describe them; "force multiplier, user centric, dynamic and responsive" to name a few.

That idea is so good you should do it twice and create BOTH a Heavy Weapons (MG) Platoon and an Anti-Tank Platoon.  And in their spare time they can be common or garden riflemen.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Danjanou

  • Reporting from Goat Rodeo Central
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 92,839
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,433
  • Butt Party NCO on the 81mm Mortar Range
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #60 on: August 01, 2013, 15:26:39 »
That idea is so good you should do it twice and create BOTH a Heavy Weapons (MG) Platoon and an Anti-Tank Platoon.  And in their spare time they can be common or garden riflemen.

We could even then put them in their own company and maybe add other platoons as the mood hits like oh I don'tt know say  out of left field another heavy weapon platoon using some sort of indirect weapons system either off the shelf or still to be developed .  Somewhere in Ottawa an under employed Senior Officer is salivating at the chance to get "leading change" base on this. ::)
NASA spent $12 Million designing a pen that could write in the zero gravity environment of space. The Russians went with pencils.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 196,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,763
  • Freespeecher
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #61 on: August 01, 2013, 16:29:29 »
We could even then put them in their own company and maybe add other platoons as the mood hits like oh I don'tt know say  out of left field another heavy weapon platoon using some sort of indirect weapons system either off the shelf or still to be developed .  Somewhere in Ottawa an under employed Senior Officer is salivating at the chance to get "leading change" base on this. ::)

And all these weapons platoons and the rest of the battalion might need help setting up defensive positions, mobility enhancement or local mobility denial....maybe some big guys with axes and other pioneer tools can be enlisted to do the job.

Just saying  >:D
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,674
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #62 on: August 01, 2013, 18:51:37 »
Honestly I think the CF has a bigger gap in our air defense but thats a bigger debate. As its stands of heard rumours or a replacement for the Eryx, though god only know when that would happen now. The Carl G is a good weapon, and could do great against modern armour if we upgraded its munitions, if we could get a APDS round for the Carl G, i doubt much could stop it. Problem with the Carl G is the fact that its un guided. Which on the flip side means it can't be jammed bbut relies more on the user to have good aim of the weapon. Now the M72 is completely outdated and is in need of serious upgrade or replacement in my opinion. against modern vehicles it is ineffective and probably couldn't even penetrate a LAV III that has been up armoured. I know its cheap but its not effective when i keep hearing from our officers we are going back to Green ops a la force on force traditional warfare. If thats the case dismounted infantry need the tools to take on armour, for example the AT4-HP is designed to penetrate up to 600mm of RHA against MBT's while that wouldnt scratch say the front armour of a T-90, you can bet we could score a side or rear armour kill with that kind of penetration power.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 147,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,683
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #63 on: August 20, 2013, 14:38:52 »
RR will never do APDS as they don't have the velocity, however stuff like (FFV751 is a tandem-warhead HEAT round with an effective range of 500 m and ability to penetrate more than 500 mm of armour. Weight is 4 kg, From wiki) would make it effective.

I do agree that the lack of a sound AD plan will eventually bite us at some point.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,228
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #64 on: August 24, 2013, 09:16:15 »
And all these weapons platoons and the rest of the battalion might need help setting up defensive positions, mobility enhancement or local mobility denial....maybe some big guys with axes and other pioneer tools can be enlisted to do the job.

Just saying  >:D

And just maybe they could operate within an infantry self-managed protective dome of indirect fire provided by some simple, effective smooth bore technology that would be man portable.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,801
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #65 on: August 24, 2013, 09:39:39 »
D&B - Check out Danjanou's post.  The one just before Thuc's.  You and he seem to have been visited by the same good idea fairy.  :)
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 257,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,228
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)
« Reply #66 on: August 24, 2013, 21:32:19 »
D&B - Check out Danjanou's post.  The one just before Thuc's.  You and he seem to have been visited by the same good idea fairy.  :)

Cool. Can you do 'punch bug' on the internet?  ;D
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon