Posted on 03/19/2024 7:14:27 PM PDT by Trump20162020
Agreed. The Ukrainians are going have to realize that the Americans are going to want them to fight this war for the next ten years. So they need to negotiate a ceasefire.
They are the current versions, and they are using the current missiles. One of them came from Germany.
Fighting the last war is generally the way to bet. Battleships were very relevant right through 1942.
Not always THE best way to go, but OK for the most part. Every new war creates new surprises, but generally it develops in the course of the current conflict, not at the outset. With just a few exceptions.
Ukraine wasn’t after Russian land. Russia was the aggressor.
Also I do not think the NATO tanks in Ukraine are using the same secret squirrel armor th hat is installed on the country’s army t.anks
—
Correct; the only similarity between the elderly M1A1s in UKR and the current M1A2 Abrams SEP v3 is the general appearance. Almost everything else is different.
The depleted uranium armor was stripped off before they were shipped, and removing it was the biggest delay in the arrival.
Obama started Hunter’s War. Putin is only doing what he promised he would do........and he had 4 years of Trump to prepare. He wasn’t going to tangle with The Donald.
More villages and big chunks continue to fall to the Russians.
This is what losing looks like.😂
I made that same point when each Abrams that was committed was quickly dispatched. The Russians have explosive armor as well, it does not seem to provide much protection. I fear that the Abrams, fully equipped, is just as vulnerable. I hope you’re right. We can cross our fingers and whistle in harmony past the Uke graveyard.
I think that cheap drones have made the tank as obsolete as the battleship. What could a carrier do against 50 speed boats loaded with explosives or 50 airborne drones with small bombs on them? The airborne drones probably wouldn’t take out the carrier but the dozens of planes sitting on the deck are fragile.
Have you considered that no country has even tried to sink a carrier since WWII? What if it were attacked by 50 small drones all at once? They certainly wouldn’t sink it, but those $100 million jets sitting in the deck are relatively fragile and a 4 lb bomb would take one out and probably the ones next to it.
Great if you have uncontested air space. Air supremacy is the key to using bombers. SAM missiles and fighters are the problem.
That’s the point of US doctrine - to establish air supremacy and suppress air defenses. Then the air-land battle can proceed.
Overweight? History repeats itself since that was a problem with German WWII tanks in the later half of the war.
October 7, 2022
"Since the war in Ukraine started, the EDM4S (Electronic Drone Mitigation System) has been a key component in targeting Russian drones."
The anti-drone gun giving Ukraine an advantage over Russia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GPLsJ4FLuA
October 17, 2022
Ukrainian drone tracks Russian drone and blasting it out of the sky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWVbTC5aEA8
November 14, 2022
"Ukraine has been using the German-made Gepard anti-aircraft gun to shoot down Russia's Shahed-136 drones."
Ukraine: The German-made Gepard anti-aircraft gun taking down Russian drones
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuWDtQhkF98
June 11, 2023
Czech anti-aircraft gun (Twitter, video)
https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1667790908572532736
June 15, 2023
"Among the arsenal of weapons aiding Ukraine in its battle against Russian aggression, one particular marvel has emerged as a true force to be reckoned with – the Flakpanzer Gephard."
How German Gepards Victorious Over Russian Drones in Ukraine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDz8E6ZBWMM
October 2, 2023
"Norman Hermant looks at a world-leading system designed in Australia that aims to counter the [drone] threat." [ABC - Australian Broadcasting Corp.]
Australian 'drone killer' system Slinger heading for Ukrainex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrJcAOa4pes
December 22, 2023
"Evolution of counter-drone strategies and delved into the sophisticated systems developed by companies like Rheinmetall, including the Skynex and Oerlikon Skyranger."
The Extreme Solution Germany Found to Destroy Dangerous Enemy Dronesx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Imt3M_1_9s
- - -
Drone Detection
Aerial Armor
https://www.aerialarmor.com/blog/range-of-the-dji-aeroscope
https://www.aerialarmor.com/drone-detection-equipment/drone-detection-radar-systems
https://www.aerialarmor.com/drone-detection-equipment/drone-detection-camera
Corona Wire - DroneWatcher App
https://www.thecoronawire.com/is-there-an-app-that-detects-drones-2021/
- - -
Anti-Air in General
Defeating the Cost Curve in Ukraine - Oct. 25, 2022 - NASAMS - ADA - C-RAM - MANPADS
Ukraine requests Centurion C-RAM from the US – would it be enough to counter drones? - Nov. 11, 2022
- - -
The U.S. Navy’s Last Line of Defense: The Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) - Feb. 2, 2024
The stupid in this article is astounding. What the author described is exactly what is supposed to happen: turret is hit, blow-out panels vent blast/fire away from the crew compartment. Crew escapes to fight another day. It’s how the Abrams was designed.
American tank crews are good because they are usually well trained, which takes time and money. The original Abrams was intended to fight delaying actions, vastly outnumbered and outgunned against red hordes along the IGB. Bottom line was: any engagement the crew could walk away from was a “win”...we could always find remounts. We couldn’t replace trained crews.
American commanders employ tank units (always more than one tank) as part of a combined arms team, mutually supporting one another. If you don’t, your negligence just killed those tanks and their crews.
Ultimately, what we are seeing in this fight is negligence: incompetent commanders, piecemealing single monkey model tanks with half-assed trained crews and little/no support into the fight...then blaming the tank when the plan fails.
Madness...
I agree that the required inter theater transport requirement was to weight restrictive, but IMHO that would have gotten worked out.
But today we nothing.
The weight requirement by Shinseki would have caused us to suffer the same fate as the Russians who also need to move their equipment around quickly and have a vehicle design concept that is very light.
The problem we have today is that we have literally a M113, M109, M2, M1, M88 and all of them use different power packs, different tracks, different sprockets... It’s a logistical mess. These vehicles also have very different off/on road drive qualities, etc.
NOTHING we have was designed with the idea of active defense (hard and soft kill) in mind.
NOTHING was designed with the idea of digital technology and being networked.
NOTHING was designed around the idea of true signature reduction, i.e. stealth.
ALL of these systems are ancient, in some cases as with the M1’s AGT1500 you have a power-pack that hasn’t even been produced for over two decades and everything is refurbished.
Meanwhile, the battle-space has entirely changed, with the Middle East, North Africa, far East Asia, being the center of gravity in what are expeditionary and often offensive campaigns. Instead of having propositioned depots with equipment to fall in on, you have to move much of the material around, you’re not on friendly ground (increased mine and IED threat), the temperatures are much higher, the roads and bridges are crap.
Also the threat technology has evolved a lot since 1956 - 1978 (the era in which all these systems were developed/designed). Today the dive and top attack munition (ATGM) is nothing novel and massive armor merely on the front turret don’t cut it, example Ukraine where Russia has pretty much destroyed most the advanced MBT’s that were sent to the front using FPV drones, quickly.
This is a serious problem/risk!
But no one is talking about it.
Analogy: We are well in the SAM and jet age in 1965, but we’re still flying P51 Mustangs and talking about the glory days where it was a bad @ss fighter sweeping the skies.
I agree with you that the systems are ancient.
Gen. Shinseki had a vision, some call it a nightmare, of wheeled vehicles all on a common platform, fulfilling multiple roles. The Strikers were an interim capability. Afghanistan showed us wheeled vehicles, the Stryker, was not up to snuff. FCS then went to tracks. You have to ask yourself if a chassis for an IFV or SPG should be common to a command post or ambulance.
FCS had a lot of other problems. Everything under the sun was thrown in. A UAV (flying trash can), smart mines, other sensors. Billions of lines of code to make it all work together. It needed a network, which the PEO did not control, and did not exist. For the most part, it still does not exist.
Sen. McCain meddled too. He hated the Other Transactional Authority contracting model and forced to the conventional, “DFARS,” type.
Programs that spun out of FCS, like the GCV, died. We got the M10 Booker, but that traces its roots to the XM8 AGS in the 90’s — killed for the peace dividend. The AMPV and MICV (formerly OMFV) in the works. The Army has killed lots of armor programs since Reagan was president (like ASM), we’ll see what happens.
Oh, the last thing from Gen. Shinseki’s vision, the BCTs, are going back into divisions!
The Stryker wasn’t that bad, and in fact it’ll hold up better (IED/Mines) than your 17.5 inch ground clearance, flat bottom, M1 will with a whopping 1 inch of steel under belly and with no shock absorbing seating.
Again, vehicles like the M1 and M2 came into service when we were in the defense, on friendly terrain (Cold War Europe was there design). Big IEDs and heavy mines were a lesser concern since all you’re really looking at are light scaterable artillery mines which the enemy could have employed.
***We are using ground systems that are (((far))) beyond their designed practical life span.***
***To truly take advantage of new concepts and technologies (Active defense, digital tech, stealth), to be designed around a different threat (roof and belly are vulnerable on older designs) operating environment (terrain, temperatures), these ground systems need to have these ideas incorporated into their design from the ground up.***
Realize, vehicles like the M1 and M2 didn’t even have AC (the M1 had it’s marginal cool air system off the turbine). They didn’t have the power supply and cabling to support much of the newer active defensive and digital technology. Their physical layout didn’t include the space for these new technologies to be incorporated. The armor itself was put in those places where the threat was, and the top and bottom were not a big concern. Concepts like stealth didn’t even exist, and how do you incorporate that with a turbine blasting out so much hot air it’ll peel the paint off a car following it to closely?
But it gets worse! These vehicles have their origin as far back as when Eisenhower was President, M113. In some cases the companies that made these vehicles don’t even exist anymore and the major components haven’t been built in over 2 decades! You are left re-manufacturing and in most cases refurbishing parts often at extremely high cost and with so-so reliability. You have the M113, M88, M109, M1, and M2, all using their own unique power-packs, tracks, and sprockets. That is a maintenance and logistical nightmare. Each vehicle has different capabilities in navigating terrain and sometimes certain vehicles can’t keep up with others in maneuver warfare. Operators are faced with vehicles that all have different operating procedures and controls.
What we have today is a mess. It sort of works because we keep bolting applique systems to these platforms to keep them somewhat viable. But none of it works 100% because these platforms were never designed for these technologies we’re trying to incorporate on them, the threats these vehicles face, or operating environment we find ourselves in today.
For example, you can add some armor and rearrange some of the internals on a M2 Bradley to make it more survival against mines and IED’s, but it’s basic design was to deal with a small mine since that threat was near nonexistent in Central Europe in the Cold War. It’s a thin, flat, underbelly that is 18 inches from the ground, like the M1. The seating was never conceived to absorb the energy of a bigger blast and trying to add such a feature to this vehicle now would reduce the occupancy (which is already insufficient) significantly.
How I would solve this:
There is no such thing as a jack of all trades and trying to make a single universal platform will not work because of the mutually exclusive design requirements.
That said, a light and heavy concept is feasible, IMHO:
Common between both is that I would use 7068T6 for inner hull, frame structures, etc. Vehicle height / ground clearance would be adjustable. At maximum height you can also attach additional V-shape underbelly armor. Vehicles share all peripheral systems, i.e. external, internal lighting, fire suppression, NBC system, remote weapons station, smoke, seating, driver controls, communications, etc. Scalable diesel hybrid electric power-packs (Opposed H4/H8) that share most parts, including a modular scalable battery. This reduces thermal and acoustic signature but also allows for greater ability to absorb damage (albeit it degraded) and still maintain mobility (i.e. sovereign electric and diesel drive). Ensure the power-pack is a self adjusting diesel multi-fuel (automotive diesel, JP4, JP8, Jet A, Jet A-1). Incorporate a sacrificial armor design, i.e. batteries, fuel cells, engine, AC etc are are positioned to provide additional armor. Vehicles are welded and riveted.
7068-T6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7068_aluminium_alloy https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-iac7bmebd7/product_images/uploaded_images/tennalum-7068-high-strength-aluminum-alloy-700x434.jpg (7075 is what was used in the past)
What I would not do: employ composites and plastics as well as adhesives in the base vehicle design and armor. That would include some of the newer materials for armor (only add on, but not in the base design). These vehicles have an extremely long service life and these materials degrade with time, UV, moisture. Under lab conditions they do well, 10 years later in the field they don’t perform to those standards.
(Airborne, Air Assault, Light, Mountain, Arctic)
The light platform would be built around the idea of maximum mobility and serve airborne and air assault forces: CH-47 sling (CH47 has a 16,000 pound sling capacity). It has C-130 roll-on and roll off, parachute drop, as well as palatalized airdrop capability. The light platform could also be used in arctic and mountainous terrain, example BV206. This platform is amphibious, without modifications (river crossings). Narrow (6 ft on ground 6.5 ft above), this vehicle is more capable in an urban setting or where it is densely vegetated. This vehicle is also fast on the road (~55 MPH practical / sustained speed). Obviously, the price you pay is in armor.
Rubber track.
Modular add on armor options.
Basically a square box because you need space for crew / passengers / equipment / weapons but have very little to work with. You can’t practically slope things.
I would go with a two part design like this: https://www.hagglund-hire-scotland.co.uk/spec.php (Front pulls, rear pushes, articulating shaft provides power to rear) This allows the vehicle to be separated and a front part (stand alone weapons platform) weighing in at ~13,500 pounds can be carried by a CH47 and a rear part at ~ 8,500 pounds can be carried separately. Inner theater, a C130J can carry 2 complete 2 part vehicles (34 men ~ 1 infantry platoon).
(Mechanized infantry and Armor)
The heavy platform would be built around a maximum feasible width (~144 inches on ground), height (~132 inches), length (~315 inches) and weight (~153,000 pounds combat load). This vehicle is simply built to give you the maximum protection possible which still can be rail loaded, carried by strategic lift (C5 / 17), a ship, LCAC, navigate many big bridges in western nations, fit through a tunnel or road underpass. Going bigger and heavier than that, and you have a worthless vehicle because of environmental mobility constraints.
Metal track.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
