Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nice to see someone, at least, has smartened up and realized the limiting factor for 1st world military operations is manpower, not hardware. Good for the Israelis. S/F....Ken M

 

I thought the No. 1 limiting factor was the sissyfied RoE invented by liberals/communists/women etc. not allowing us to nuke/radiologically contaminate/gas/anthrax/all of the savages and replace them with civilised Westerners? I hope you're not going soft on us Ken? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One is a tactical/operational issue, one is a strategic/civilizational issue, Chris. I'm sure you're familiar with doing things you personally disagree with because it's your job, right? And you understand the concept of scale? Me personally thinking that our tactics are fucking stupid and an utter waste of time, treasure and blood has little to do with the fact I took the Man's salt and therefore should do the Man's work. Ken personally going on a crusade to civilize the 3rd worlders with a Krag is worse than pointless; it's counter productive. One lunatic blasting 20 Mexican civvies in some fucking walmart is an atrocity, and excuse to commit fuckery upon the people. A thousand guys in a battalion combat team could genocide a nontrivial chunk of northern Mexico, and probably cause the government of Mexico to topple.

 

None of which has anything to do with the fact that Israel is not stupid and realizes that maximizing their peak combat power is best done by designing their equipment so fewer dudes bring more firepower to the fight faster. There's no reason not to have three, or even two man MBT's, if you consider them like fighter planes with dedicated service and support personnel, instead of this legacy issue of designing large and heavy MBT's so you can fit crew that just load ammo and pull guard shifts and break track. S/F....Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. The next big revolution IMO is improvements in situational awareness reducing the OODA loop and enhancing the crew's ability to fight.

Just like APS, we'll spend decades and billions trying to do half of that only to eventually buy their solution (if we're lucky) which we probably helped fund anyway.

Existential threats do wonders for efficiency.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no reason not to have three, or even two man MBT's, if you consider them like fighter planes with dedicated service and support personnel, instead of this legacy issue of designing large and heavy MBT's so you can fit crew that just load ammo and pull guard shifts and break track. S/F....Ken M

So more of a T-72 type solution as far as crewing/ employment. My only concern is that the "talking autoloader" may serve more purposes that humping ammo ( especially a 2nd set of eyes if the AFV is suitability engineered). My point is that this "solution" cannot be made in isolation and that the vehicle, crew and doctrine must all be engineered around this solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's no reason not to have three, or even two man MBT's, if you consider them like fighter planes with dedicated service and support personnel, instead of this legacy issue of designing large and heavy MBT's so you can fit crew that just load ammo and pull guard shifts and break track. S/F....Ken M

So more of a T-72 type solution as far as crewing/ employment. My only concern is that the "talking autoloader" may serve more purposes that humping ammo ( especially a 2nd set of eyes if the AFV is suitability engineered). My point is that this "solution" cannot be made in isolation and that the vehicle, crew and doctrine must all be engineered around this solution.

It's no longer relevant when a crew of 2 with current tech, has a situational picture 10 times clearer and faster, than a crew twice the size with in-service tech.

 

Any added bonus of extra pairs of eyes is already mitigated by the implementation of AI to analyze data from new sensors like high-res radars and cameras, which then alerts the crew anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Elbit won the tender for Eitan's APS, will supply Iron Fist LC APS for it.

 

https://www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/39823

 

Additionally, the D9 bulldozers will also get the Iron Fist.

 

Wow that must be a first. Has anyone ever deployed an APS system on combat engineering/earthmoving vehicles before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Singapore Hunter IFV reminds me a lot of the Carmel. I am under the impression Israel and Singapore have fairly close ties, and I wonder how much Israel tech may be in the Hunter, if any at all.

 

9R66PUp.jpg

Literally the entire turret is made by Rafael, one of 3 Israeli companies that showcased a demonstrator for the Carmel.

 

Of course, what matters is the camera setup on the outside, new sensors, sensor fusion, and the UI for all that data.

 

The Hunter's cockpit seems to be going the Carmel's way, but it's still rather limited and not providing the same level of immersiveness as the Carmel seeks to get.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Keep in mind the maximum distance a Israel IFV is expected to operate in for the most part, is likley within 40km of the border.

Which is completely irrelevant for the vehicle's design, or the structure of its support chain.

 

It's incredibly relevant to any vehicle the Israelis build. Literately they can truck the vehicle back to the factory from the frontline within hours. A vehicle used by an expeditionary force may have very limited ability to fix or repair various items and only limited stocks of parts. The Israelis can "tune" their vehicles to the terrain and threat they know that they will face. Countries like Canada, UK or a force like the USMC may not know where they be fighting next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Keep in mind the maximum distance a Israel IFV is expected to operate in for the most part, is likley within 40km of the border.

Which is completely irrelevant for the vehicle's design, or the structure of its support chain.

 

It's incredibly relevant to any vehicle the Israelis build. Literately they can truck the vehicle back to the factory from the frontline within hours. A vehicle used by an expeditionary force may have very limited ability to fix or repair various items and only limited stocks of parts. The Israelis can "tune" their vehicles to the terrain and threat they know that they will face. Countries like Canada, UK or a force like the USMC may not know where they be fighting next.

 

 

The IDF also spends the same time if not more driving around training areas as other armies. I doubt they would be happy only driving 40 kilometres. Also they have had wars like the six days war that certainly added up more track kilometres than 40. Also it cuts down on repair and maintennance times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that the logistical reach the Israelis need is far shorter than pretty much any other Western Army. They don't do any UN or overseas deployments. In their history the longest reach of their armoured forces (barring Entebbe) has been about 225km from their border in 1973. That was 46 years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Keep in mind the maximum distance a Israel IFV is expected to operate in for the most part, is likley within 40km of the border.

Which is completely irrelevant for the vehicle's design, or the structure of its support chain.

It's incredibly relevant to any vehicle the Israelis build. Literately they can truck the vehicle back to the factory from the frontline within hours. A vehicle used by an expeditionary force may have very limited ability to fix or repair various items and only limited stocks of parts. The Israelis can "tune" their vehicles to the terrain and threat they know that they will face. Countries like Canada, UK or a force like the USMC may not know where they be fighting next.

And how do you think this translates to the design of the vehicle itself?

Because I don't see any way it does.

 

For an Israeli armored unit, the supply of parts and ability to recover, is not as immediate as you may think.

And for an expeditionary unit, the ability to maintain their vehicles is not necessarily as bad as you suggest.

 

Any Israeli armored unit, can be called to fight either in the sandy and empty plains of Sinai against Egypt (low probability), in the urban environment of Gaza (very high probability), the rocky and muddy fields of southern Syria (medium probability), or the very complex Lebanese terrain of mountains, narrow passages, and semi-urban towns (high probability).

 

Each of them offers different logistical challenges, and the IDF is only in early stages of developing solutions to properly supply its troops in all these settings.

 

But if the circumstances necessitate it, the IDF possesses the capability to conduct complex logistical operations over much longer ranges than merely 40km beyond its border.

 

Currently it is in the process of setting up at least 10 spearhead BCTs, and 3 SF BCTs.

A typical BCT is larger than a typical brigade.

If the largest brigade in the IDF has 5 battalions, then that would be the size of your typical BCT.

 

3 BCTs are going to have the capability to deploy much farther than the spearheading BCTs, and will be composed of various commando and paratrooper units.

 

Now back to the US. What you're talking about is only relevant for the USMC, not US Army.

The typical MEU has 4 tanks, 7 LAVs, and 14 AAVs, or in other words 4 tanks, 7 IFVs, and 14 APCs. That's a total of 25 AFVs that need support and maintenance.

They are further supported by 4 artillery guns.

 

To supply them, they have at their disposal:

5x LCAC.

2x LCU.

7x LVSR.

30x MTVR.

4x CH-53K.

3x UH-1Y.

 

Of course, the heavy lift helicopters may be needed to resupply the aerial assets with engines and munitions. But in total you have approximately a shit ton of logistical assets to provide for a not too large ground force.

That is, per capita, a whole lot more than the IDF can allocate to its own forces.

And of course, just like the IDF will be setting up FOBs during fighting, so will the USMC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand the AAV-7 running gear wasn't meant for long road marches but the marines seem to make it work on the push to Baghdad

I've always found it interesting how underwelming unit sizes can be when laid out compactly...

A reinforced battalion
zghiqTj.jpg


An entire brigade... (4,000+)

TzpQTRO.jpg

Edited by Burncycle360
Link to post
Share on other sites

any more details on the evolving IDF brigades - structure - what I read strikes me as not very revolutionary

The IDF only publishes news when there are very significant developments. It's still in early stages.

 

IDF plans to have 10 regular BCTs, and 3 commando BCTs within 5-10 years, as said about a year ago.

 

It's not revolutionary as BCTs existed for a while, but with new evolving concepts of fighting, BCTs are becoming more relevant now than ever, and may lead to the global phasing out of much of the conventional, corp-oriented formations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...