AFVs on islands and jungle terrain

[Guest davedx]

For island countries, are heavy AFVs, such as MBTs needed? especially those islands that are not in any immediate danger of a war.. I'm looking at some of the armed forces of island countries and many don't seem to have a large number of MBTs if any, mostly wheeled tanks or IFVs at most.

[Argus]

I think it comes down to a realistic threat assessment, who might come calling and what they might bring. For most island nations, to have an enemy turn up at home with heavy armour by default means they are facing a superpower, due to the lift requirements, in which case facing off in a conventional battle is losing proposition anyway. Plus for an island, the maxim holds good that if 'they come heavy - they will come by sea' so sea/airpower is the logical shield and the army a second tier insurance, as with Britain (at home) historically.

 

So if a island country has no use for heavy AFV's in an expeditionary role or some other purpose, then not having them is a very easy economy to make if national self-defense is primary criteria.

 

shane

[Archie Pellagio]

Depends on the island...

 

Somewhere like Bahrain or Singapore might probably want them, Fiji and New Caledonia won't.

 

Is the island close to shore is probably a big one, if the potential adversary only has to cross less than a few km to hit the beach - ie a glorified river crossing - their abilities to land and resupply forces with some heft are a lot greater than if you're island is somewhere a million miles from anywhere where you would need an adversary with significant amphibious capability as well as naval power.

 

One of the key indicators might be consideration of enemy logs both in terms of their capability and the stress factors on it, particularly distance.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Luke_Yaxley

[Special-K]

So how would this apply to the Falklands?

 

Wouldn't a few Chieftains have been useful in resisting the initial attack?

 

 

 

-K

Edited June 12, 2009 by Special-K

[Lieste]

So how would this apply to the Falklands?

 

Wouldn't a few Chieftains have been useful in resisting the initial attack?

-K

 

They might have struggled with the terrain - it can be rather soft, with very rough ground between.

 

A few tanks aren't likely to make much difference against a pre-planned invasion though - either they'll come somewhere else, with some additional troops and anti-tank weapons, employ airstrikes against them or just suppress their logistic support till they run out of fuel or breakdown (or a combination of all of the above).

 

A better vehicle for the conditions would be the Scorpion/Scimitar/Striker/Spartan vehicles of the CVR(T) family. They probably would fare just as badly if exposed to air attack, or proper antitank weapons, but would have superior mobility, a lower logistics requirement. They also are 'less of a threat' and may have elicited a lower response from the Argentine planners.

[Olof Larsson]

So how would this apply to the Falklands?

 

Wouldn't a few Chieftains have been useful in resisting the initial attack?

-K

 

Yes, I'm a firm believer that an island nation like the United Kingdom should posses tanks.

The same would certainly also apply to island nations like Japan, Taiwan and so on.

 

As far as the Falkslands go AFAIK moving around the island with heavy vehicles seems problematic,

so if you would have a platoon of heavy tanks at Stanley, thats where they will fight.

 

So I figure having mobile SSM's (or even ATGM's) would be more useful,

but considering the size of the force at the Falklands having heavy weaponsystems,

might not be productive at all.

 

Having hidden stocks with rations, batteries and so on all over the Islands,

so as to be able to carry out recon after an invasion might have been the most productive.

[Special-K]

Thanks for the replies.

 

So then would I be correct in thinking that wheeled armored vehicles would also be of little use there as a matter of the terrain being even more difficult for wheels than tracks? By that I mean both today's wheeled armor and that of the late '70's/early '80's.

 

While they might do better logistically, they would have even poorer mobility and less actual 'combat power' when in action.

 

 

 

 

-K

[Guest aevans]

Thanks for the replies.

 

So then would I be correct in thinking that wheeled armored vehicles would also be of little use there as a matter of the terrain being even more difficult for wheels than tracks? By that I mean both today's wheeled armor and that of the late '70's/early '80's.

 

While they might do better logistically, they would have even poorer mobility and less actual 'combat power' when in action.

-K

 

Depends on the island. A densely populated island with a lot of roads, like Luzon, would benefit from wheeled AFVs. As always, METT reigns supreme, even at the level of acquisition strategy.

Edited June 12, 2009 by aevans

[Lieste]

Thanks for the replies.

 

So then would I be correct in thinking that wheeled armored vehicles would also be of little use there as a matter of the terrain being even more difficult for wheels than tracks? By that I mean both today's wheeled armor and that of the late '70's/early '80's.

 

While they might do better logistically, they would have even poorer mobility and less actual 'combat power' when in action.

-K

 

They would have been just as mobile as the heavy tanks - everyone is stuck on roads, so fine detail doesn't matter too much.

 

The CVR(T) or a very light APC (like the M113) would have a little more freedom of manoeuvre but the FV400 series is too heavy and with poor track design & would fare about as well as the MBTs. Still when he has only foot infantry and trucks, an M113 is a tank

[Special-K]

How were the Argentine AmTracks used? They were tracked vehicles, and I would think they would have decent soft ground performance if only due to the track size and relatively light vehicle weight (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Did they see other action beyond the initial invasion? It would seem to me that they would provide a significant advantage over a 'pure' infantry opposition.

 

 

 

 

-K

[baboon6]

How were the Argentine AmTracks used? They were tracked vehicles, and I would think they would have decent soft ground performance if only due to the track size and relatively light vehicle weight (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Did they see other action beyond the initial invasion? It would seem to me that they would provide a significant advantage over a 'pure' infantry opposition.

-K

 

They were withdrawn soon after the initial invasion. The Argentine forces brought in a squadron of AML-90 armoured cars but AFAIK these did no see too much action either.

[Colin]

Singapore was using Amx-13's

 

The CVRT seems to work and there might still be improved M41's kicking around.

 

Also the PT-76 might be a good choice.

 

Mind you most IFV's offer the same firepower and armour protection as light tanks, so the BMP-3 can fill the role.

 

 

In WWII the Stuart tanks and ones fitted with the 76mm howizter were used quite a bit.

[George Newbill]

I would think that any amphibious machine like a PT-76 or BMP would be ideal for a small Island Nation.

[Corinthian]

I recall we had a thread on AFVs/MBTs on various terrains and it was posted that using MBTs in such terrain is "more of the greatness" or something like that (by that, it is meant that using MBTs in such terrain was just as good as using light tanks and wheeled AFVs, just much better).

 

I really think it all depends on what opposition there is. Singapore, for instance, has that nice causeway linking it to Malaysia, which has MBTs, and there are IIRC still territorial disputes between the two. The Philippines, OTOH, has more of an internal security problem (although China going south is as always the main "foreign security" issue), which opposition do not have any good AT weapon (AFAIK, the heaviest weapons the insurgents use are 90mm RRs, and perhaps 120mm mortars). So light and wheeled AFVs will do.

 

Our heaviest AFVs are the LVTH-6s. We have some AIFVs although it's been a while since I've seen one in the news. Mostly, it's LVTH-5/6s, M113s with ACAV stuff, LAVs, Simbas, and Scorpions.

[wallaby bob]

I think it comes down to a realistic threat assessment, who might come calling and what they might bring. For most island nations, to have an enemy turn up at home with heavy armour by default means they are facing a superpower, due to the lift requirements, in which case facing off in a conventional battle is losing proposition anyway. Plus for an island, the maxim holds good that if 'they come heavy - they will come by sea' so sea/airpower is the logical shield and the army a second tier insurance, as with Britain (at home) historically.

 

So if a island country has no use for heavy AFV's in an expeditionary role or some other purpose, then not having them is a very easy economy to make if national self-defense is primary criteria.

 

shane

 

ARGUS. To call any threat assessment "serious" is going pretty far out on a limb I can recall reading of an early ,late 1930s albeit amateur attempt , at same by a European who at least saw WW2 approaching and decided to move his family to a safe place free from danger. Selecting a quiet place in an iccreasingly toubled world proved a little morwe difficuly he moved to Guadacanal! WB

[wallaby bob]

I think it comes down to a realistic threat assessment, who might come calling and what they might bring. For most island nations, to have an enemy turn up at home with heavy armour by default means they are facing a superpower, due to the lift requirements, in which case facing off in a conventional battle is losing proposition anyway. Plus for an island, the maxim holds good that if 'they come heavy - they will come by sea' so sea/airpower is the logical shield and the army a second tier insurance, as with Britain (at home) historically.

 

So if a island country has no use for heavy AFV's in an expeditionary role or some other purpose, then not having them is a very easy economy to make if national self-defense is primary criteria.

 

shane

 

ARGUS. To call any threat assessment "serious" is going pretty far out on a limb I can recall reading of an early ,late 1930s albeit amateur attempt , at same by a European who at least saw WW2 approaching and decided to move his family to a safe place free from danger. Selecting a quiet place in an iccreasingly toubled world proved a little more difficult he moved to Guadacanal! WB

Edited June 13, 2009 by wallaby bob

[Archie Pellagio]

They would have been just as mobile as the heavy tanks - everyone is stuck on roads, so fine detail doesn't matter too much.

 

The CVR(T) or a very light APC (like the M113) would have a little more freedom of manoeuvre but the FV400 series is too heavy and with poor track design & would fare about as well as the MBTs. Still when he has only foot infantry and trucks, an M113 is a tank

 

I remember the CG saying in several sources one of his big regrets was always not using scorpions at Goose Green because he believed they wouldn't negotiate the mud, but after the fact he discovered they could, so i don't think that argument holds up.

 

I think with the Falklands, it seems a bit silly to station a platoon or company of scorpions (yet alone chieftains) when there is only an infantry platoon there anyway.

 

If they really wanted to defend it a decent well equipped infantry station would've been better or best something to simply show resolve that the Brits simply wouldn't roll over and accept an Argentine invasion.

[DougRichards]

I remember the CG saying in several sources one of his big regrets was always not using scorpions at Goose Green because he believed they wouldn't negotiate the mud, but after the fact he discovered they could, so i don't think that argument holds up.

 

I think with the Falklands, it seems a bit silly to station a platoon or company of scorpions (yet alone chieftains) when there is only an infantry platoon there anyway.

 

If they really wanted to defend it a decent well equipped infantry station would've been better or best something to simply show resolve that the Brits simply wouldn't roll over and accept an Argentine invasion.

 

Re the Falklands. Its defence was being bankrolled by Britainso it had the potential to have more defence in general in the area, but MBT would have been less useful than more infantry, and some patrol type boats to move them around or armed helicopters to support them.

 

For a small island nation-state, that would generally have less financial resources, spending the money on patrol boats that were each capable of landing and supporting a couple of sections of infantry would be a better use of money.

[Archie Pellagio]

The big thing here is what sort of islands we talking about here?

 

A small island in the middle of the ocean far from the mainland like many pacific islands, Falklands etc?

A small island just off the coast of the mainland?

A more medium sized island just off the coast like Singapore?

Larger islands of 'regular country size' relatively close to the coast like Taiwan or Sri Lanka?

Larger islands at extreme distances from the mainland like Iceland?

Or massive islands like Japan, UK, Papua, Java, Borneo etc of middling distance from the mainland??

 

All are very different.

Some will be treated as glorified river crossings, others massive amphibious operations. Some might only require infantry plus some supporting arms, others you will want full combined arms operations.

[DougRichards]

The big thing here is what sort of islands we talking about here?

 

A small island in the middle of the ocean far from the mainland like many pacific islands, Falklands etc?

A small island just off the coast of the mainland?

A more medium sized island just off the coast like Singapore?

Larger islands of 'regular country size' relatively close to the coast like Taiwan or Sri Lanka?

Larger islands at extreme distances from the mainland like Iceland?

Or massive islands like Japan, UK, Papua, Java, Borneo etc of middling distance from the mainland??

 

All are very different.

Some will be treated as glorified river crossings, others massive amphibious operations. Some might only require infantry plus some supporting arms, others you will want full combined arms operations.

 

If the thread title is taken as an indication, ie 'Islands and Jungle Terrain' we are looking more at Gilligan's Island rather than the Guernsey or Jersey.

[Guest davedx]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies.

 

how about for these two scenarios.

 

- A small, developed, mostly tropical series of islands thats located near some potential hot spots and major military powers (but has good relations with them)

- An mostly cold climate island thats located in close proximity to the mainland near a major military power (like say Russia)

[R011]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies.

 

how about for these two scenarios.

 

- A small, developed, mostly tropical series of islands thats located near some potential hot spots and major military powers (but has good relations with them)

- An mostly cold climate island thats located in close proximity to the mainland near a major military power (like say Russia)

If they have the money, they should have as many tanks as they can afford. They should also be the heaviest they can afford, unless the ground is complete crap for anything heavier than a CVR(T).

[Doug Kibbey]

If the thread title is taken as an indication, ie 'Islands and Jungle Terrain' we are looking more at Gilligan's Island rather than the Guernsey or Jersey.

 

Now we're talkin'! I get a Sheridan or ACAV (one full tank, it's a small island) and MaryAnn and Ginger, 1 ea. for crew. Enslave the Professor, Gilligan and Skipper, and the Howells are toast. Transmit message that all the others were lost in shipwreck...and I am mortally injured......*ackkkk, gasp, mmmph*. End transmission.

[Archie Pellagio]

Now we're talkin'! I get a Sheridan or ACAV (one full tank, it's a small island) and MaryAnn and Ginger, 1 ea. for crew. Enslave the Professor, Gilligan and Skipper, and the Howells are toast. Transmit message that all the others were lost in shipwreck...and I am mortally injured......*ackkkk, gasp, mmmph*. End transmission.

 

Screw the tanks just give me Mary-Ann and Ginger!

 

Thing I never understood is that they were able to turn palm trees and coconuts into multi-story houses, full experimental laboratories, electricity-generating water-wheels and all sorts of other things yet they couldn't patch a foot wide hole in a boat?

Edited June 14, 2009 by Luke_Yaxley

[shep854]

Oh well, there goes the thread...

 

"Thing I never understood is that they were able to turn palm trees and coconuts into multi-story houses, full experimental laboratories, electricity-generating water-wheels and all sorts of other things yet they couldn't patch a foot wide hole in a boat?"--Luke Yaxley

 

"GILLIGAN!!!"

Edited June 14, 2009 by shep854