FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

stupidities like the Kettenkrafttrad
How so? Rather useful piece of kit, whether it be used to haul stuff around the battlefield or as an aircraft carrier. Possibly a candidate, with trailer, for the Universal Carrier thread.

The Germans were fans of halftracks for a reason. We actually trialled the FAMO and were very impressed with it.
 
No they wouldn’t , the Huns would have copied the Jeep.
Kubelwagens weren't all that off-road. Better than the civilian cars that were the German norm, but vastly inferior to the myriad proper 4x4’s of all shapes and sizes the British and Americans shipped.

The Zundapp mc combo was ‘german’, an over complex solution to a simple problem.
Even when the Jeep was sitting in front of them, the stupid buggers didn’t have a ‘so that’s how you do it’ moment. Instead, stupidities like the Kettenkrafttrad were designed to get around the Mc combos bogging down short comings. Now that really was a stupid vehicle.
Did a German hurt you once?
 
No they wouldn’t , the Huns would have copied the Jeep.
Kubelwagens weren't all that off-road. Better than the civilian cars that were the German norm, but vastly inferior to the myriad proper 4x4’s of all shapes and sizes the British and Americans shipped.
Copied the Jeep eh? I think you'd have been more likely to find a whole load of VWs dominating the market, oh wait...
1954-VW-Beetle.jpg
 
Problems with a combination of durability and repairability? No simple way to replace busted links (as there aren't any) and can a worn out band-track be remanufactured, or is it landfill? I have only used this sort of track on BVs though, so it might have all changed this century...
The rubber tracks are reportedly very durable, much more so than metal tracks apparently. The company that makes them serves primarily the civilian market in agriculture, forestry, and related fields and this is a very mature and widely used technology. It's not just a rubber band, as it also contains steel cables and kevlar.

In cases of normal wear and tear you would normally just replace the entire track when it started looking too worn. Supposedly this takes much less time than with a metal track. For the military market where you might need an on the spot repair of a track that has been damaged by a mine, they have a repair kit that involves cutting out a section of track and splicing in a new section with metal hinge joints. You would then replace the entire track at a later time as a proper repair. They are reportedly less susceptible to mine damage than metal tracks by the way.

I believe that another company has developed an experimental track that comes in sections jointed together by metal hinges, and you can replace just a single section. I would hesitate to jump to the conclusion that this is better though, as one piece tracks probably dominate the civilian market for a reason. So far as I know, Soucy are the only ones offering an actual product to the military market.

Current models are suitable for vehicles up to 45 tons if I recall correctly, which is why we don't see them proposed for tanks.

 
How so? Rather useful piece of kit, whether it be used to haul stuff around the battlefield or as an aircraft carrier. Possibly a candidate, with trailer, for the Universal Carrier thread.

The Germans were fans of halftracks for a reason. We actually trialled the FAMO and were very impressed with it.
The beggars had good kit and were good soldiers, which makes our winning scraps with the blighters all the more impressive.
We lost a lot of blokes proving that, so let's not underestimate the Germans.
Yes they had some off the wall ideas ( Maus - FFS ...) But they had good stuff too.
Credit where it's due.
 
I'm not suggesting you use neutral steer to track the target FFS.

Simply to avoid the lengthy turret go around.
Assuming you’ve got room and the option to steer to manage it, and that the hull can out-turn the turret.
You also have to factor the reaction time as the turret crew work out what happened, what the best solution is and instruct the driver accordingly.
Compared with mounting the MMS outside the sweep of the gun or on the turret.
 
Assuming you’ve got room and the option to steer to manage it, and that the hull can out-turn the turret.
You also have to factor the reaction time as the turret crew work out what happened, what the best solution is and instruct the driver accordingly.
Compared with mounting the MMS outside the sweep of the gun or on the turret.
Again, think about the ranges at which an MMS will be used versus the time(s) needed to react.
 
I realise that (we throw one on Sennellager in the mud), but there was a lot of steel in them. Just speculation to see if there'd be any improvement in performance.
Sorry - wasn't setting out to try and teach you to suck eggs. Just noting that a lot of thought went into all aspects of the design of the CVR(T).

There are quite a few videos of the rubber track on YouTube by such as IHS Jane's. The tracks' performance and their stated durability look very impressive.

As noted by others, consider their use on Bv 206, etc. - we accept that in a blink, and that they do work. So, I can see entirely where you're going with the suggestion.
 
OK that would have been on the nail up until the Eu money started to change the layout of those countries! Warsaw Pact TRG areas were laid out to replicate invasion routes through West Germany! Even river banks were regraded to replicate the Weser etc!
If the Russians wanted to reinstate the IGB at the channel ports (obviously Russian officers map reading is standard) I expect they will have routes planned, mapped, surveyed and obstacles replicated. Oddly enough I doubt they have planned to that degree, remember they can get up to date geographic updates almost daily through the web.
We no doubt use similar sources and would be able if we wanted to roll along Ivan's routes!
We have in my opinion allowed artillery to fall in its importance to us as an army! In 1918 and throughout world war two we had fantastic artillery. Where are we now?
In a modern high threat area, drones and close support survivability drops off a cliff and the airforce would have to inordinate time trying to change that fact.... That means the artillery is absolutely critical.
 
British Army needs 'fundamentally different mindset' as it reforms to fight major battles again, report says

Lots of very familiar themes and observations here.
Jack, what's your arrse user name?

Telegraph News


British Army needs 'fundamentally different mindset' as it reforms to fight major battles again, report says


The British Army must reorganise away from counterinsurgency operations to be able to fight in a more agile and lethal way, a new report has said.

The British Army must reorganise away from counterinsurgency operations to be able to fight in a more agile and lethal way, a new report has said.


Dominic Nicholls, Defence and Security Correspondent


20 June 2019 • 12:01am


The British Army is “not prepared” for the casualties it would suffer if forced to engage in combat with Russia, a new report has said.


In the future, the army will need a "fundamentally different mindset" to casualty procedures “that reflect the difficulties of extracting under heavy contact”.


The warnings come in a paper released today by the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) that has examined army structures after two decades of counter insurgency operations.


Alongside rapid-reaction troops like paratroopers and commandos, the army needs a force agile enough to reinforce Nato quickly but which also has the firepower to “slow a conventional Russian thrust” through the Baltic states, the paper says.


The idea for a rapidly deployable and fast-moving force was inspired by France’s 2013 intervention in Mali. After Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, the government committed £3.5 billion to buy a fleet of 589 new armoured vehicles.


The MoD committed in the 2015 Defence Review to creating ‘Strike Brigades’ built around these vehicles, and Army chiefs have been experimenting since then to build the most lethal and versatile force.


The army’s Strike concept envisages a force that can self-deploy up to 2,000km and be used as protected troop carriers in low-intensity counter insurgency operations, as well as having the firepower to take on Russian tanks.


In any future confrontation in Eastern Europe, Russian air defence systems would make resupply by aircraft almost impossible, the report says, and to meet the weight restrictions of the vehicles - to ensure a high top speed - they could only carry limited armour. As a result, the Strike Brigades “must compensate by being sufficiently lethal”.


The army has been in a process of managed decline since 2011, the researchers state, and has faced cuts of £31 billion to its budget. Additionally, the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan reshaped the army to focus on counter insurgency operations.


General Sir Nick Carter, then Chief of the General Staff, said in 2015: “We bent ourselves significantly out of shape from 2007 onwards to be able to deal with the challenge that we were confronted with in Helmand.”


The army is still equipped with Mastiff vehicles, bought to protect troops from road-side bombs in Afghanistan. However, these “worn-out...battlefield taxis” are no good against tanks, the report warns.


The researchers accept is is a significant challenge for the Strike Brigades to find a way of evolving the army from the structures and equipment necessary for counter insurgency operations, back to modern war fighting.


The paper says speed of deployment is crucial to reduce the risk of any incident escalating as re-taking towns can be “gruelling, costly and slow”. However, at present, Britain’s armoured infantry Brigades are expected to take 60 days to reinforce the Baltic states.


“In all probability an adversary could achieve its objectives within this time,” the author’s say.


The paper suggests that failing to be seen by Russia as a credible deterrent makes a provocation, probably in the Baltic states, more likely.


“Force structures that neglect, or outsource, critical capabilities...should be looked upon with scepticism,” concludes the report.


A senior Army source told the Telegraph: “the paper raises interesting points on how we might make adjustments to the balance between agility, protection and firepower.


“We are where we are and we need to experiment our way to the future. We have to get on with it as we can’t rely on an ever decreasing number of old and limited platforms that don’t deliver a deterrent effect.”
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
And here is is a link to download the report

Strike: From Concept to Force

Ed. I've only brief skimmed it but the reports content will be familiar to to regular contributors on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Army Reserve 3
TheIronDuke The NAAFI Bar 84
schweik The NAAFI Bar 45

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top