Alternative Armour Thoughts

[raafif]

think the main reason for using MBT hulls is their better armour protection -- they will be superceeded by smaller vehicles with the same thick armour protection of the MBT type, hopefully in the next-generation of Bradley / Warrior types.

[Maverick]

Protection for the vehicle has merit if it's an ICV/APC type, but less so for the recon role.  That is, of course, depending on the doctrine prescribed to, as the Germans tended towards the heavier armoured & armed vehicles, whilst the British position was the opposite.  At the end of the day, however, the recon vehicle should be invisible to its target and not directly engaging enemies otherwise it's role has been compromised.  Ergo smaller, lighter, etc makes for the better vehicle following that premise.  When I was serving with a armoured recon regt in M113s, it was standard practice to dismount the vehicle and perform close foot recon rather than attempt to do so with the vehicle.

Regards,

Mav

[Weaver]

Recce by Stealth vs Recce by Fire is one of those endless doctrinal disputes that never get resolved. The "Fire" argument has two strands:

1. What happens when the Recce-by-Stealth gets compromised and they have to shoot their way out of trouble?

2. In practice, so-called "recce" units end up doing a lot of non-recce stuff that needs firepower, like rearguard actions and road escort.

Can any ground vehicle really be stealthy on the modern battlefield? When IR and ISAR can spot just about anything hot or metal, are you any better off in a Fennek than a Bradley?

[Maverick]

Valid point Weaver, although every situation doesn't necessarily mean that the opposing forces will have access to the latest hardware, especially given the current 'low intensity' conflicts that the World finds itself in. 

As to whether the vehicle needs adequate firepower for protection, as I have said, if they've been compromised, they've failed their primary function.  For being used as rear-area escort, seems like a waste of trained specialists to me.

Recce by Stealth seems to work in many situations where it is employed correctly.  Recce by Fire seems to be asking for the bad guys to come and find them.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Can any ground vehicle really be stealthy on the modern battlefield?

Yes!  This one can!



And it can even be armed! Heavily!



And, when off duty, what other military vehicle had a femme fatale always draped over its bonnet like this?



And even the heavies like the Moke:



Six of one!   

[dy031101]

I realized that without stipulation, people will take single-turret tanks as far as practicality goes......

But if MG turrets were stipulated, which one by your estimation has a more practical MG turrets placement: Neubaufahrzeug (more coverage, I guess) or T-28 (concentrated to the front)?

Personally I'm inclined to think T-28 (concentrated firepower probably lends itself better for frontal assaults), but do you think I have the right idea under the stipulation?

[rickshaw]

I'd suggest that neither really matters as long as the sub-turret has sufficient coverage to able to bear on most arcs.  It is more a question of fire control rather than necessarily grouping of weapons for concentration.  If several weapons can cover the same arc, then their fire can be directed effectively to provide a concentration.   However, that is one of the major problems with such weapons - what is the tank commander's primary duty?  AT fire or MG fire?   What does he concentrate on?  Looking for tanks or looking for infantry?

[Weaver]

And, when off duty, what other military vehicle had a femme fatale always draped over its bonnet like this?

The photo that wasn't published, but which goes for silly money when rare copies of it come up, was taken seconds later, when the girl sitting on the driver's side fell off, and the weight of the girl on the other side of the bonnet then caused the Moke to flip over towards her, forcing her to jump into the harbour to avoid being crushed....

[Weaver]

I realized that without stipulation, people will take single-turret tanks as far as practicality goes......

But if MG turrets were stipulated, which one by your estimation has a more practical MG turrets placement: Neubaufahrzeug (more coverage, I guess) or T-28 (concentrated to the front)?

Personally I'm inclined to think T-28 (concentrated firepower probably lends itself better for frontal assaults), but do you think I have the right idea under the stipulation?

Or there's the Char 2C layout, with an MG gunner in a separate compartment behind the engine. Good firing arcs to protect the rear and can probably be trusted to know what to shoot at and when (any joker sneaking up behind with a satchel charge, basically). An alternative, and less costly option would be the ball-mounted gun in the rear of the turret seen on some Soviet and Japanese vehicles: does anyone know how much actual use they got?

[dy031101]

However, that is one of the major problems with such weapons - what is the tank commander's primary duty?  AT fire or MG fire?   What does he concentrate on?  Looking for tanks or looking for infantry?

I was going to say "looking for tanks and letting the MG turret gunners look for infantry", but then I can see a problem with that answer: 1.) the main turret might afford better observation than the MG turrets and 2.) there are circumstances where infantry formations can pose as much of a threat than opposing armours.

Wikipedia claims that the T-28 was actually successful during the Winter War for a 1930-era infantry support tank (although I don't think Finnish armours at that time had anything better than FT-17 and Vickers 6 ton) despite heavy losses in face of an extremely competently-manned defense line.  I wonder how it operated.

Or there's the Char 2C layout, with an MG gunner in a separate compartment behind the engine. Good firing arcs to protect the rear and can probably be trusted to know what to shoot at and when (any joker sneaking up behind with a satchel charge, basically). An alternative, and less costly option would be the ball-mounted gun in the rear of the turret seen on some Soviet and Japanese vehicles: does anyone know how much actual use they got?

Interesting questions......

=====================================================

Relocated from the T-34 thread- T-29, T-28 fitted with Christie Suspension:




The suspension of T-29 is said to be convertible like those of BTs, but not being a cavalry tank like the BTs, I suppose the provision for wheels-only wouldn't end up being missed?

=====================================================



This is supposed to be the successor of the Char B1, Char B40...... a hull-mounted 105mm howitzer and a turret ring diametre of 168cm...... I wonder what kind of suspension it uses and if the turret would now be a two- or three-man design......

[rickshaw]

I realized that without stipulation, people will take single-turret tanks as far as practicality goes......

But if MG turrets were stipulated, which one by your estimation has a more practical MG turrets placement: Neubaufahrzeug (more coverage, I guess) or T-28 (concentrated to the front)?

Personally I'm inclined to think T-28 (concentrated firepower probably lends itself better for frontal assaults), but do you think I have the right idea under the stipulation?

Or there's the Char 2C layout, with an MG gunner in a separate compartment behind the engine. Good firing arcs to protect the rear and can probably be trusted to know what to shoot at and when (any joker sneaking up behind with a satchel charge, basically). An alternative, and less costly option would be the ball-mounted gun in the rear of the turret seen on some Soviet and Japanese vehicles: does anyone know how much actual use they got?

More than likely very little 'cause they required a crewman who was better employed manning the main gun to use it (usually the loader or the commander).

Instead of assuming that tanks operate singly which is essentially what these band-aid solutions of extra MG or turrets does, it would be better to ensure that your tanks act in concert, in units which protect one another and in turn support or are supported by infantry who make sure that no one sneaks up behind the tanks to do their dastardly deeds.

The whole reason why the Vickers Independent (the precursor to the T-35) was designed was because of the mistaken belief that tanks were like battleships.  This was Fuller and Liddell-Hart's erroneous thinking between the wars when they were searching for a doctrine.  They mistakenly likened armoured vehicles to warships, to the point where they called mechanised infantry "tank marines".   Problem is, the simile falls down 'cause defensive units are not like port defences - stationary - they are nearly as mobile as the armoured forces and they don't stay sportingly in one place while the armoured vehicles manoeuvre around them as ships do.  They will move to protect themselves and their objectives whilst channelling attacking units to where they can kill them.

This is why tanks today have one turret with one main gun.  Its simpler and cheaper in the long run to have an AFV which is designed to do its job well, with a well-trained crew than have a "jack of all trades" which is of course, master of none.   By ensuring that all arms mutually support one another, the modern armoured unit is synergistically greater and more powerful that the sum of its parts.

[rickshaw]

However, that is one of the major problems with such weapons - what is the tank commander's primary duty?  AT fire or MG fire?   What does he concentrate on?  Looking for tanks or looking for infantry?

I was going to say "looking for tanks and letting the MG turret gunners look for infantry", but then I can see a problem with that answer: 1.) the main turret might afford better observation than the MG turrets and 2.) there are circumstances where infantry formations can pose as much of a threat than opposing armours.

Now you are starting to understand the issues involved.  This was also why the MBT-70 concept with the driver in the turret failed - the tank commander always likes to have the best observation point - high on the vehicle - unobstructed by the vehicle.  With the driver beside him, his view was obscured.   This is also why tank commanders dislike the idea of using artificial systems for observation and why they have resisted the unmanned turret concepts which have been promoted over the last 30 years.

The tank commander Commands.  He is somewhat like the captain of a ship.  He must decide where the vehicle goes, direct the driver.  He must also fight the battle and direct the turret crew.  He has multiple responsibilities both to protect himself and the crew and their vehicle and he must make sure the vehicle fights its share of the battle.   Dividing his responsibilities and his attention even further by forcing him to control the fire of multiple turrets and weapons, firing in very different directions makes his problems even more difficult.

Wikipedia claims that the T-28 was actually successful during the Winter War for a 1930-era infantry support tank (although I don't think Finnish armours at that time had anything better than FT-17 and Vickers 6 ton) despite heavy losses in face of an extremely competently-manned defense line.  I wonder how it operated.

In concert with the infantry it was supporting.  The T-28 was conceived, AIUI as a  "breakthrough tank" - somewhat analogous to the British "I" tanks.  Designed to create the conditions where cavalry tanks like the BT series could exploit any breakthrough in the enemy line which was achieved.   Where the Finns were able to separate the tanks from its supporting infantry it then became relatively easy meat for their own infantry.   The extra MG turrets were not terribly successful - being grouped at the front to achieve the maximum firepower in the attack.

[dy031101]

Neubaufahrzeug, T-28, and Char 2C invariably has their observation position mounted higher than the subturrets, leading me to think that if anyone's view is obstructed, it'd be the subturret crew.

Nevertheless, the way I got it figured, even if subturret fire control is completely left to the discretion of their crew, the tank commander might still have to decide if their targets are dangerous enough to require supporting fire from the main turret......

T-35 is way overboard for me......

[royabulgaf]

 ""The whole reason why the Vickers Independent (the precursor to the T-35) was designed was because of the mistaken belief that tanks were like battleships.  This was Fuller and Liddell-Hart's erroneous thinking between the wars when they were searching for a doctrine.  They mistakenly likened armoured vehicles to warships"

I always thought of the multi turret tank, and you can include the various WWI tanks in this group, as the pre-dreadnoughts of tanks.   The military and designers finally come to the conclusion that secondary armament is a poor use of your weight budget.

[pyro-manic]

It also adds complexity, increases the cost of the vehicle (both to build, run and man) and means the armour layout will be deeply flawed.

They are very cool though.