Jump to content

Thonar3

Members
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Thonar3's Achievements

Crunchie

Crunchie (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. It is actually Panzerbataillon 414, not 141 (this number is "owned" by a logistic bataillon) and isn't 1st PzDiv under direct command of Kdo-H? The dutch armed forces are going more and more under German national command, not a multinational Corps. See the 11. Dutch Airborne Brigade. The same will happen to the 43. MechBrig
  2. DynVM for PzFst? Nope... probably just the normal shortcomings...
  3. @Banshee: I've got the feeling you mix something up. There was never a plan to put a G82 in a squad. They solely were thought for the Sniper-Squads on company-level as weapon of choice when the G22 isn't enough. These "weapon demonstrations" usually don't show the exact "loadout", especially since the loadout is often not "fixed", as you yourself mentioned. But your are correct, I just checked my sources and there are 2x MG 4 per squad, still I could bet that they will become 1x MG4 + 1x MG5. Well G28 and G27 are more or less the same system and are used as DMR, when available, instead of the G3-DMR. Also: A PzGren-Squad definitely should have 2x PzFst 3 by their orga, why they aren't shown on the exhibition photo above, I can't tell... but, well, we know the situation.
  4. @Banshee: @Light Infantry: Is it really 2xMG4 and not 1x MG4 + 1x MG3(/5)? When I'm not mistaken a Squad-GPMG is seen as necessary in Afghanistan and in Forests. I'm also quite sure that within the Squad is a DMR with G3/ G27P. Also, there are AFAIK not 2x Grenade-Pistols, but only 1x (+UGLs), but 2x PzFst per Squad. @PzGren: There are no LMG36 in use with the German army... it is just a G36 with a 100-round-drum-magazine... and I'm curious where the 2nd PzFst per squad is?
  5. I don't really get their "worship" of accuracy... nobody wants a MG that puts every round in the same hole.
  6. Is there just a slight chance that this is what the thinking behind having such a round really is all about? With the number of companies & military forces now involved in the production and deployment of various APS systems, in theory it'll only be a matter of time before two so-equipped military forces go head to head. Perhaps a 2km/s projectile may be useful in this instance? How effective are APS systems against tank gun rounds anyway? When we look at modern ERA (which is AFAIK the reason, why slower more "thicker" rounds are actually better performing due to a higher resistance), I would say it is already possible to have an "effective" APS (on certain ranges, maybe 1+km) against Sabot. There isn't much needed to reduce the effectiveness of a Sabot-Round actually, but the detection to action-time is pretty short and is probably the mainproblem.
  7. Not much time, thus I will only try to add here some things until I have more time tomorrow to add more: 1. Wilhelm the 2nd: Despite his quick-tempered character, his reputation is actually worse then it should be. In contrast, after speaking out Germanies support to A-H after the killing of the crownprince, which can be seen as a mistake, he was one of the few people who actually tried to prevent a war or to keep it at least local. He even thought after the Serbian answer to the Austrian ultimatum that there would be no war because it was seen by him as enough and a political victory. Unfortunately important German diplomats who favoured a war had quite some influence (and Wilhelm II. actual influence in the events of the July are also overrated). 2. "Illusions of a fast war": I wouldn't call it illusions, especially not when it is your only chance of winning the war at all (Germany never had in his history the ability or the luck to be able to fight a long lasting war, especially not when you are "surrounded by enemies"). Also the initial German attack until the battle at the Marne actually proved the ability that such a war was possible, later the 2nd world war proved again that quick victories are in fact possible. Even during the Great War the eastern front for example was far more "fluid" and the collapse of the Italian army at the Isonzo proved the possibility of quick-successes too. Even on the western front, the Germans fought far more maneuverable than their foes on a tactical to operational basis. The lessons learned of the first world war from the German side actually found the basis for the successes of 1939 to 1941. 3. German - Austrian military cooperation: There were huge differences in Command and Control between the German army and the Austrian army. I'm not sure if a military cooperation was actually so easily possible. To the questions: Was the war inevitable? Yes, pretty much. This can be especially seen also in the populace of the countries which cheered for the war pretty much everywhere. Something that never happened again to the same extent in every other war AFAIK.
  8. Well, increasing armor-penetration seems to be relatively easy (just imagine a jump to 140mm for tank-guns) while increasing "passive" armor-protection is probably relatively complex/ difficult, except there is a revolutionary step found, which doesn't seem to be predictable. I'm not saying that current Hard-/ Softkillsystem are sufficient enough, but I think the possibility is there, especially, when both work combined with eachother, and thus ammunition of the Hardkill-System could be saved. An APFSDS-rod... well, it seems to be relatively easy to reduce its capability in armor-penetration when even modern ERA has a good effect on it. Thus the question is: How much armor protection is needed combined with a Hard-/ Softkillsystem to stop APFSDS-rounds? I know of no test in this direction so far. On the other hand the "passive" armor-protection needs to protect the tank from modern autocannons. Something between 40t-50t seems to be good (depending on what you want exactly), which is still less than current MBTs. What is quite imaginable too is a 30t-vehicle + applique-armor to make an MBT air-transportable while basing the protection mainly on APS (which seems to be easier to adjust to newer threats, than classic armor). I think such designs are already possible, but would need a lot of development and research and which nation wants to invest the money in such (high-risk/ high-reward) projects, while "old tankers" in charge may be even too narrow-minded to believe in such developments? Still I've got the opinion the development for tanks is stuck with old ideas...
  9. Simple: 1. Operational Durability of the Crew 2. The idea what the tank should be able to do is still basicly the same as at the end of WWII 3-men tanks are nothing but conventional tanks, good tanks, I don't even doubt this, but they offer nothing new for the battlefield. Every extra-System you would add to such a tank, being it Command-and-Control-equipment, further optics, weapon-systems,... need to be controlled/ managed/ observed by fewer men, which means an increase in workload and thus a reduction in combat-efficency of the crew. Sure, if you just want some armor, optics, a big gun on a vehicle... go for it. But in the future tanks need and can add more to the battlefield.
  10. Keep in mind, a tank battalion will lose >20% of its tanks permanently or to repair shops, but less than that share of its crews. After a week or two, it might very well have two crews per operational tank, maybe three. So in practice of defending your alliance against an aggressor powerful enough to dare a fight with your alliance, your tank troops will work and fight four days with little sleep (a rule of thumb, since sleep discipline is lacking everywhere), and then their jobs may become much easier because less vehicles need be serviced and operated anyway. While true, I doubt the possibility of exchanging crews during a battle (which may last several days). There are some modern main battle tanks that use some if these concepts, and South Korean K2 Black Panther can be one example. It has both soft and hard-kill systems(although its hard-kill was deleted in the first batch due to mutual interference between sensors), and incorporates mobiliity and enhanced probability of hit via advanced sensors for vehicle defense. However it does not have ridiculously thin frontal armor, and actually provides adequate protection against modern tank rounds from the frontal 45 degree arc. Why should main battle tanks have conventional armor protection level that is comparable to infantry fighting vehicles? Because of weight. Future Hard- and Softkillsystems may be well able to stop threats enough that a conventional armor may be enough. The weight-savings may be well worth it (not to mention the costs). But as I said: This might be tested. The Leopard 1 was a great design, tough...
  11. It's not hypermodern, it's a bad concept. The whole tank development in Germany of the past was focused on two men crews - starting in 1989 with the EGS and 1990 with the VT2000 to the NGP project that was ended (or modified) in 2002. This concept is not the result of any down-sizing ideas from the politics, but the result of numerous user tests of the then BWB and field trials of the Bundeswehr. It is extremely hard to understand anyone arguing for a four men crew with autoloader in 2015, given that the technology has come a long way since then. On the Puma the German army went back to a three men crew, so it might be plausible to argue for a three men crew for the future German tank. Four men on the other hand... An IFV is not the same as a tank. The problem with 4-men crews is durability during missions. I know of not a single German tanker who favors 3-men concepts, in contrary everyone I spoke with always argued in favor of a 4-men system, for good reasons. Tracks can't put changed by 2-men, 4-men is the minimum for such a work. Being for a whole week during exercise in a tank means that the crew needs to do sentry-duty, 2 men will not only have fewer eyes to observe something, they will reach far earlier the limit before they are exhausted. Otherwise you would have to change units far more often out of frontline-duty, which even drives the costs higher for the same combat-effectiveness. This is the big problem of crews with fewer than 4-men (next to a lot of other problems partly connected with the above mentioned). The further reduction of crew-members in a tank is the wrong way. It means either that armies will learn this lessons the hard way OR it may even mean the end of the tank force. There are other ways to develop the tank-weapon further IMO (for example, as shown above, in offering a higher mission flexibility and thus offering more solutions to different problems).
  12. This is so far off the reality... sure you don't stick your head out, when you drive through a city... but on an open field, during an attack, after a break-through... as battalion commander who coordinates his forces. There are so much instances, when it is advicable to stick your head out, as there are instances when must keep it within the tank. 4 (hypermodern): Driver, Gunner, TC and Modul-Operator/ Co-TC (+Autoloader) Driver sits in the hull, Gunner, TC and Modul-Operator sit at best in the turret, but to save place, the gunner or MO could also get into the hull. There is no such design yet, despite the possibility. The idea is that the MO controls a in-field changeable modul, depending on mission, that could be everything: From a top-mounted weapon, to a drone-start-landing-system, to a radar-system, to enhanced radios, to enhanced optical devices, loud-speakers, water-cannons (with reduced capability)... + doing all the work along the radio/ modern IT (maps, radioing on "big circles",...). This way the MO supports the TC by helping to assess the situation, with the further ability to get everything the TC also gets (own optics,...) the MO could also support the commander in classical roles and the Hunter/Killer-Ability finally reaches a level of being able to engage targets faster than before. Not to mention the modularity depending on the mission is a huge plus, which is needed to support the infantry in modern scenarios (like the idea of Three-Block-Warfare) Now I hear you: Too much to fit into a turret. Not necessarily. Sure, the new design would be bigger, except someone would go with a "all-or-nothing"-design: Soft-Kill + Hard-Kill-Systems as the main armor, classical-armor only against Autocannons up to 40mm or 50mm, speed and enhanced first-strike capability (by higher situational awareness) as main-defense. But this would have needed to be tested.
  13. It is astonishing how well you use "exaggeration" as stilistic art in rhetoric.. 1. Yes, I'm in favor of 5 men crews, when a loader is still in the tank, but as a matter of fact, autoloaders are the future, so I stick with 4 men + autoloader designs 2. "episcopes are better for situational awareness" as what? Never said something along these lines, what I actually stated and you refuse to address is the point that having the ability to use the Mk1 eyeball is better than not having this ability.
  14. No matter how advanced technology get, as long as you need to control it, it means an increase in workload on the crew and thus reduces the effectiveness of the crew, especially when you reduce the crew-size even further.
×
×
  • Create New...