Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There is no reserve like during cold war.

AMX30 have only be cut or stored in order to be sold.

There was 370 Leclerc in duty before the reform (4 regiment of 80 + schools).

After the reform, only 4 regiment of 60. The rest will be sold. No reserve in case some are damaged.

Ouch! I guess I am very much behind the times then. It seems that Europe is getting a bit complacent. :frown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, where IS that armored/mechanized enemy within range that has means and intent to invade a European country? The only one with the means (Russia) has no intent in actual conflict with NATO, and those who might want to invade us don't have the strategic lift capacity or they'd have to invade a dozen other countries before their troops might eventually reach us.

How many Abrams tanks are stationed in the US homeland, for homeland defense purposes? Compare that number with the total number of MBTs stationed in European countries. I bet there won't be such a dramatic difference in total numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, where IS that armored/mechanized enemy within range that has means and intent to invade a European country? The only one with the means (Russia) has no intent in actual conflict with NATO, and those who might want to invade us don't have the strategic lift capacity or they'd have to invade a dozen other countries before their troops might eventually reach us.

How many Abrams tanks are stationed in the US homeland, for homeland defense purposes? Compare that number with the total number of MBTs stationed in European countries. I bet there won't be such a dramatic difference in total numbers.

Well, the actual number of tanks in that US has in CONUS is not extremely relevant given the logistic capabilities there of. I mean, it is not as if France (or nation X) has 400 tanks in the homeland, and ~2,500 tanks in Afghanistan (or somewhere else in the world, which would probably be a comparable CONUS to overseas ratio for US tank deployment).

Of course the time to assemble a capable army is not after a threat has been perceived (historical situations come to mind). It is an age old debate of course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the actual number of tanks in that US has in CONUS is not extremely relevant given the logistic capabilities there of. I mean, it is not as if France (or nation X) has 400 tanks in the homeland, and ~2,500 tanks in Afghanistan (or somewhere else in the world, which would probably be a comparable CONUS to overseas ratio for US tank deployment).

Of course the time to assemble a capable army is not after a threat has been perceived (historical situations come to mind). It is an age old debate of course...

i think its "the combined tank force of all of europe" roughly is comparable to the combined force of USA.

so you take leclerc+challenger+ariete+leopard2 of the various countries along europe, and i think the number will roughly equal the american numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think its "the combined tank force of all of europe" roughly is comparable to the combined force of USA.

so you take leclerc+challenger+ariete+leopard2 of the various countries along europe, and i think the number will roughly equal the american numbers.

Yes that is true, providing that they would all reliably stand up to defend their neighbor. That is probably another debate. ;) But yes, it would be like saying Texas has a strength of 400 M1A2s, which would be quite a number in this perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wanna watch those Texans, they might declare independence. :sonic:

But at least if/when Al implements the LeClerc, we can actually have a fully simmed and manned LeClerc, given that there is no loader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US overseas deployment isn't directly comparable because the EU is not a monolithic nation like the US but a loose federation of friendly states with mutual security guarantees. Without an integrated defense sector it is hard to imagine why and how each nation could or should assume similar commitments. It is as if you had a Californian army with its prepositioned forces in South Korea, Texas shipping a few of its tanks to Diego Garcia, Oregon sending a few to Okinawa, ...

The comparison of each European country with the individual states of the US is a quite valid analogy to the extent that they are roughly comparable both in economic power, population, and land space. The US is a superpower only because its 50 states aren't nations while in Europe the 30+ countries are nations, not states.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to draw direct conclusions from US commitment to what "Europe" could and should do. The only way to accomplish that would be a unification of European exterior and defense policy under a single will. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. Consequently Europe must follow different principles in its exterior politics - ideally leveraging more soft power in a coordinated effort rather than relying on hard military power (not that it can do entirely without). It is equally obvious that reality doesn't come close to such an ideal which is hardly surprising as each nation is sovereign with its own set of national priorities and interests. There is a substantial overlap of interests, but there can hardly be an identity of it for as long as each nation elects different leaders with different agendas. Just imagine the US had no president, and congress would run some "coordination office" trying to align the policies of the 50 different state departments and each national guard.

Have fun.

Given all that, I think Europe is doing remarkably well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well id still have a 4 man crew lol its either a group of mechanics in a separate tank or an additional member that can help and do minor repairs to get the crew out of there fast. It might cost to feed a man but how much would it cost to replace a belt or anything else, dont forget you have to pay a mechanic (also feeding, clothing and watering him) to fix it and oil isnt cheap either. In the end its just cheaper to have the 4th man around.

Can I ask and I dont mean to be a knob or anything but does the American Army use mass rather then efficency as part of an over-all tactic. I know Field Marshal Montgomery did the same thing in Egypt but with the fire power and technolgy these days is it a necessary tactic anymore?

Im not having go or anything im just curious, The American Forces are one of the greatest in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well id still have a 4 man crew lol its either a group of mechanics in a separate tank or an additional member that can help and do minor repairs to get the crew out of there fast. It might cost to feed a man but how much would it cost to replace a belt or anything else, dont forget you have to pay a mechanic (also feeding, clothing and watering him) to fix it and oil isnt cheap either. In the end its just cheaper to have the 4th man around.

Can I ask and I dont mean to be a knob or anything but does the American Army use mass rather then efficency as part of an over-all tactic. I know Field Marshal Montgomery did the same thing in Egypt but with the fire power and technolgy these days is it a necessary tactic anymore?

Im not having go or anything im just curious, The American Forces are one of the greatest in the world.

Mass, It's the American Tactic in warfare, Superior Man Power. And the ability to arm them with mass production. Hence the reluctance to be drawn into a Indochina related conflict. Were similar man power can be thrown back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well id still have a 4 man crew lol its either a group of mechanics in a separate tank or an additional member that can help and do minor repairs to get the crew out of there fast. It might cost to feed a man but how much would it cost to replace a belt or anything else, dont forget you have to pay a mechanic (also feeding, clothing and watering him) to fix it and oil isnt cheap either. In the end its just cheaper to have the 4th man around.

and how much does it cost to replace a gearbox, or an engine? suspension components, worn roadwheels?

the leclerc is 10% lighter than the M1A1(HA) abrams.

it would mean the drivetrain and suspension and tracks would roughly be wearing down 10% less than

on the abrams.

thats 10% reduction in maintenance cost. the autoloader on the other hand barely works under any stress at all compared to the drivetrain. 270kg or someting compared to 56 tonnes.

so whats a few squirts of oil and a mechanic compared to 10% of the maintenance cost of an engine, gearbox, tracks, and roadwheels? overall you'd need less mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and how much does it cost to replace a gearbox, or an engine? suspension components, worn roadwheels?

the leclerc is 10% lighter than the M1A1(HA) abrams.

it would mean the drivetrain and suspension and tracks would roughly be wearing down 10% less than

on the abrams.

thats 10% reduction in maintenance cost.

I am afraid to disagree with this simple assumption.

That would be true only if both tanks share the same gearbox, each gearbox or driveshaft is designed based on the torque output power it has to produce and with this in mind, the whole structure and materials are selected.

Actual new material and technology makes avalaible engines and gearboxes everytime lighter and able to produce more power and usually service life is not based on how many tones do they move by itself but in other factors.

basically you can have the same service life in two diferent power drive systems that move different weight vehicles.

I think construction and design wise as well as proper use and maintenance are the real factors to determine the life cycles of such systems, not the weight and specially not so relatively small 10% difference on weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently (iraq) tanks stand as essentially terror weapons(taking almost everything you throw at it and have it keep coming), moving MG implacements, long-range bulldozers ;), and general terror deterants (Suicide bombers/gunmen not other tanks :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well id still have a 4 man crew lol its either a group of mechanics in a separate tank or an additional member that can help and do minor repairs to get the crew out of there fast. It might cost to feed a man but how much would it cost to replace a belt or anything else, dont forget you have to pay a mechanic (also feeding, clothing and watering him) to fix it and oil isnt cheap either. In the end its just cheaper to have the 4th man around.

It's not about personnel costs, it's about protection. Every human in a tank needs about 1.5 to two cubic meters of space (and not just "any" space, it must accommodate the shape of a human body). For these two cubic meters you need armor protection. The bigger the volume grows, the thinner the armor around it can be for any given upper weight limit. In other words, fewer crew members can result in lighter and/or better protected tanks.

At least in principle. Of course there are designs of three-man tanks where the protection isn't all that great, or where weight and armor protection are only similar to that of a more conventional four-man tank. But poor implementations still don't devalue the principle as such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see all the points in this but what im saying is is it worth it to replace a human loader with an autoloader. The armour might be thinner with the 4th making the tank lighter but the gun and gunner come into their own, getting the 1st shot and 1st kill in before the enemy. It would really cost more to have a bunch of mechanics in a tank then given an alocated place in an MBT, if their tank got hit on the way to the damaged MBT then that would render the broken down MBT vulnerable and helpless. At least with the 4th he'll do a small job that saves not just the tank his in but others aswell. A tank or maybe 2 wouldnt have to come out just to repeair it. The tank could limp home and get repaired quicker and more efficiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me much depends on the details of the autoloader itself. If done well I think it can be more of an asset than the human loader's absence would be a liability. Point is, at high speed over rough terrain a human loader can actually NOT serve his role, or at least not serve it well. An electromechanical automatic loader would not suffer from a bouncing vehicle (if done right) and load the gun with the same speed.

Also, not only can a machine break down. More often actually humans do - from fatigue, stress, illness, injury. As good as it is to have another pair of eyes for situational awareness, there will be other situations where an automat could be quite a bonus. In urban combat operations situational awareness (eventually combined with a secondary armament) may be THE deciding factor in close perimeter defense, provided that the loader's station actually allows good observation and the operation of a weapon while buttoned up. Neither of which is always the case though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well ive seen new pics of the loaders hatch becoming a remote controled MG with NV, thermal and TOG but this was on a challenger 2 MBT. Maybe the loader is eventually getting phased out and replaced by an autonomous machine, the Auto-Loader and the Remote control MG could be a combined unit. But yeh i think your right sSnake, it has to be done right but like i said with a garanteed ammunition load everytime. Being maintained before and after active duties , not that it wouldn't because if it wasn't well-looked-after then it cost the crew dearly.

That RCMG comes in a kit - an upgraded coms unit, improved side plate armour plus the RCMG unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Nils was suggesting a choice between a more reliable loader (a well engineered automatic device) and an operator for the under-armour Remote Controlled Weapon Station.

This may force the retention of the fourth crewman even if the automatic loader was made more reliable and faster under difficult conditions than a human loader is capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But with automated systems coming in and more and more jobs being taken could this mean that a human is no longer needed on the front line? i mean take a look at the SWORD and the Black knight weapon system. the SWORD could take over the job of an ordinary soldier but Elite forces Like the SAS, Navy seals, etc, etc, would have to train harder to keep up with their automated counterparts. The black knight is a project the US is on, its a UGV which houses a 30mm cannon and survailance equipment on a tracked hull. Next step is putting that into an MBT variant, I hope it doesnt come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's a no-brainer to predict that (western, rich) armies will try to increase stand-off and to minimize the amount of human exposure to fighting where they can. Still remotely controlled killer robots still require some sort of a data connection to a remote operator. Hunt him down/take out his control site and the horde of killer drones becomes useless.

Or you make the machines autonomous. In that case we're from then on in a Terminator world. That is of course ethically highly questionable. Some nation with a different set of ethical norms may still do it eventually, but I have a hard time imagining our societies being the same that they currently are, applauding to unleashing a horde of killer robots that rely on mathematical models of their surrounding environment to determine whether or not they will pull the trigger, and then flooding a reagion with these killer machines.

Currently our generals seem to be predisposed to keeping a man in the loop, which means that his remote data connection to the drone is in principle subject to cyber attacks or the destruction of the C2 infrastructure, or the elimination of the drone operators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I think it's a no-brainer to predict that (western, rich) armies will try to increase stand-off and to minimize the amount of human exposure to fighting where they can. Still remotely controlled killer robots still require some sort of a data connection to a remote operator. Hunt him down/take out his control site and the horde of killer drones becomes useless.

Or you make the machines autonomous. In that case we're from then on in a Terminator world. That is of course ethically highly questionable. Some nation with a different set of ethical norms may still do it eventually, but I have a hard time imagining our societies being the same that they currently are, applauding to unleashing a horde of killer robots that rely on mathematical models of their surrounding environment to determine whether or not they will pull the trigger, and then flooding a reagion with these killer machines.

Currently our generals seem to be predisposed to keeping a man in the loop, which means that his remote data connection to the drone is in principle subject to cyber attacks or the destruction of the C2 infrastructure, or the elimination of the drone operators.

time will tell.. in 2025 we'll have the computing power to simulate a human neural network.

a cybertank however doesn't really need that much computing power. a brain the size of a cockroach will do. stay alive, shoot the enemy, don't shoot friendlies. as long as we don't make the factories autonomous as well, and network them to the internet, we should be fine.

any robot uprising can be quelled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An EMP will sort that problem out, it is a problem none-the-less. The SWORD does have an operator but eventually it could be taken autonomous. UAVs have already been tested to pilot themselves rather then an operator safe at base, the same with UGVs. There is a utility platform that does its job entirely on its own but it can be over-ridden by a detachable control panel on board, which i good but what if its going too fast and the equipment need is on board, there's no over-ride unless he has that panel (and lets face it we can be forgetful sometimes, especially under fire.).

All i can say is theres a fine-line to be drawn here. Automated systems can only go so far to only assist on the battlefield but cant ever totally take over. A human element will always have to be there, whether its to repair the machines or to actually fight along side the robots. I do agree that protection is key to a soldier but totally taking him off the field and replacing it with a robot would be nothing more then a game. It wouldn't be serious enough until it actually got to the Civilian streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eventually military research will need to be directed towards creating irradiated zombies to deal with the problem of a terminator robot insurgency. Ah. Hollywood B movies knew it all well in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well in Demolition man Arney becomes Persident, hes governor of california maybe he can make it. As for Salvester Stillone maybe hell be frozen and come to kick wesley snipes ass in the future.

we can all dream :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a pipe dream, Because the aliens are coming to reclaim the planet from us. Each of us gets a Hitch hikers Guide to the galaxy, and a free coffee coupon for the Restaurant at the end of the Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×