Jump to content

Syrian tank raids


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

It just feel surreal to me that we are watching this in HD, I am not sure whether there have ever been engagements with tanks recorded in this quality and "camera angles" like these... pause at 6:44-45 - muzzle flash...

r1znK1Kl5Gs

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, the MRAP program, the M1 Tusk, the Leopard 2 PSO.

Thanks Rump. The MRAP is more what I was thinking of. Looks like that could move around city streets pretty quickly. The other two are modifications to an existing tank. At least the Leopard has 2 x RWS, while the TUSK package seems to be focused on survivability, not improved offense ability in urban conditiions. And surely a long, main gun with an effective range of many km is not only unnecessary in urban warfare but a distinct disadvantage?

Link to post
Share on other sites
And surely a long, main gun with an effective range of many km is not only unnecessary in urban warfare but a distinct disadvantage?

As long as your enemy is exclusively composed of RPG men, obsolete AFVs and BMP turrets welded to pickup trucks, with office chairs for the gunners you're right. But there's no guarantee (as in a law of nature) that in urban combat you couldn't also run into a modern tank. If you specialize too much you may forfeit your ability to react to unforeseen situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Rump. The MRAP is more what I was thinking of. Looks like that could move around city streets pretty quickly. The other two are modifications to an existing tank. At least the Leopard has 2 x RWS, while the TUSK package seems to be focused on survivability, not improved offense ability in urban conditiions. And surely a long, main gun with an effective range of many km is not only unnecessary in urban warfare but a distinct disadvantage?

while the TUSK package seems to be focused on survivability, not improved offense ability in urban conditiions. This is not true, The TUSK kit includes something called a CROWS 2 which is basically the same as a RWS. It also includes something call a LAGS 2 which is for the Loader for urban fighting. And lets not forget the CREW 2 system and the ERA

Link to post
Share on other sites
And surely a long, main gun with an effective range of many km is not only unnecessary in urban warfare but a distinct disadvantage?

Well that's just another version of the "a" war Vs "the" war discussion.

Most countries/industries aren't going to invest the time and money to develop a bespoke, urban combat optimised solution when:

1. The development cycle is too long for the people who need it "now"; and

2. Once fielded it may well be useless for the next war.

Much more likely to produce an "add on" kit for existing vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And surely a long, main gun with an effective range of many km is not only unnecessary in urban warfare but a distinct disadvantage?

Ah, the 'Tanks in cities' conundrum.

Here's an interesting document dealing with that:

https://www.box.com/s/erzruvsutsf4t4roubin

From the foreword:

Few lessons are as prevalent in military history as is the adage that tanks don’t perform well in cities. The notion of deliberately committing tanks to urban combat is anathema to most. In Breaking the Mold: Tanks in the Cities, Mr. Ken Gott disproves that notion with a timely series of five case studies from World War II to the present war in Iraq.

Link to post
Share on other sites
More AFV footage from Syria. It includes footage from both sides of the same engagement, and a T-72's ammo explosion.

BbHcA6mXX7o

Wow! Looks like that T-72 was OBLITERATED by an RPG-29, judging by the clip seconds earlier of the guys running to a vantage point. Poor bastards never knew what hit them. Is this the future of armored warfare? Tanks and IFVs crashing through cities?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me and the guys from UK armour have been training using a urban setting type mission.

It may be only a simulation but it does give you a sense of what it would be like to

Conduct such operations.Bloody Difficult. I have been in a real T-72 and to say you have Very limited observation is an understatement.couple that with smoke dust and the

Knowledge that your opponent has various RPG's at there disposal

It must be hell For the crews.lets hope both sides turn to talks because its a stale mate.

Neither side has the strength to win

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Rump. The MRAP is more what I was thinking of. Looks like that could move around city streets pretty quickly. The other two are modifications to an existing tank. At least the Leopard has 2 x RWS, while the TUSK package seems to be focused on survivability, not improved offense ability in urban conditiions. And surely a long, main gun with an effective range of many km is not only unnecessary in urban warfare but a distinct disadvantage?

Well that's why the PELE and M1078 rounds were developed.

The M256 & L44/L55 120mm cannons are smooth bores.

If it'll fit down the Barrel, you can fire it. :biggrin:

Unlike rifled guns which impart a spin on the round,

this can have negative effects on rounds like HEAT and Canister.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's why the PELE and M1078 rounds were developed.

The M256 & L44/L55 120mm cannons are smooth bores.

If it'll fit down the Barrel, you can fire it. :biggrin:

Unlike rifled guns which impart a spin on the round,

this can have negative effects on rounds like HEAT and Canister.

HESH works quite well in a urban setting:biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
while the TUSK package seems to be focused on survivability, not improved offense ability in urban conditiions. This is not true, The TUSK kit includes something called a CROWS 2 which is basically the same as a RWS. It also includes something call a LAGS 2 which is for the Loader for urban fighting. And lets not forget the CREW 2 system and the ERA

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as your enemy is exclusively composed of RPG men, obsolete AFVs and BMP turrets welded to pickup trucks, with office chairs for the gunners you're right. But there's no guarantee (as in a law of nature) that in urban combat you couldn't also run into a modern tank. If you specialize too much you may forfeit your ability to react to unforeseen situations.

Point taken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's just another version of the "a" war Vs "the" war discussion.

Most countries/industries aren't going to invest the time and money to develop a bespoke, urban combat optimised solution when:

1. The development cycle is too long for the people who need it "now"; and

2. Once fielded it may well be useless for the next war.

Much more likely to produce an "add on" kit for existing vehicles.

So would a 'carbine' version of the main gun that could be switched easily with the existing gun be a possibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A short barreled main gun would mean that you would need to change the ballistic calculation for the rounds, KE would be useless and for HE and HEAT it would have the ballistic characteristics similar to that of a mortar one would think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So would a 'carbine' version of the main gun that could be switched easily with the existing gun be a possibility?

A possibility yes, a practicality, no.

Apart from recalculating the ballistic calculations you'd have other issues, like:

- Turret balance (the vehicle is designed for the current long barrel and its weight, momentum, etc.).

- Rework stab (again since effectively its a new turret)

- Fume evacuation.

- Other changes to the FCS

- Blast effects on the glacis (that used to be behind the muzzle).

Depending on how short you are talking about (M551 Sheridan or AVRE, say) then the ammunition would need to be redesigned too.

None of that is a simple overnight, in theatre modification with a hacksaw. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

the terminator is a good urban vech,from an unproven standpoint.how about a Bradley hull or M1 hull mounted with a 30,40mm cannon 4 bbl HEAP,HE FRAG,HE,whatever.Cal.50 mounted ontop of the 4 bbl as an RWS.2 tubes of ATGM or anti personnel rockets.heavy armor of course and also ontop.all weapons can be loaded or unloaded internally.ERA and an missle defense system and the capability to carry troops?say 4 with gunports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well basically the guys in theatre either didn't need it or the development cycle was going to take too long.

I suspect "user requirement" was a key reason why they went down the MRAP path as an affordable short term solution for protected mobility whilst TUSK was considered "good enough" for the tanks.

A tailor made M1 or Bradley would be coming off the line now or soon, just in time to be moth balled as ISAF and the US pull out.

Not quite the story the US needs in this period of major budget cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with MBT type afv is there size, going into a builtup area is not all that great. We in the west are used to having wide open areas in our cities/towns. The middle east, well most of the rest of the world has narrow streets, and large AFV dont maneuver to well there. In Afgstan getting through your average village is hard even for a Mrap/MaxPro, tanks would not be able at all, even if the road could support the weight (they won't).

So for urban fighting a AFV has to be able to maneuver, then we could talk wpn systems to bring fire upon the target. The size of a Mrap is just at the limit, so wpn choice is limited at best.

We see from most vids in Syria the streets are narrow at best and high buildings.The T-72 is seen having some maneuver issues, and it's a small tank compared to western tanks in length and width, BMP's seem to well there with the high angle for the main wpn, the issue with the BMP is protection, all are seen with no inf around for protection.

There is no easy answer, but for a billion (US) a wpn /defense contractor probably has a veh for you.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bundeswehr entertained the idea of keeping ca. 50 Leo 2 turrets in storage (with the short L44 barrel and increased side armor protection for urban operations), so they would be swapped against the regular turret depending on the expected mission.

In the end the idea was rejected for cost reasons. But it seems to be the only practical way to do it at all (short of maintaining two different tank fleets). But you don't save a lot of money. Long-term storage costs, too, and arguably a turret is more expensive than a tank hull (even though they both are sunken costs, once procured).

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.


×
×
  • Create New...