Germans vs Yanks

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Jun 23, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I read in a recent issue of Jane's (can't remember which one) that two differing concepts are being followed by the Germans and Yanks. The Germans are upgrading their AFVs (think its the Puma class) to have heavier armour, the Spams are going for the lighter more mobile solution.

    Given the history of armoured warfare in WWII, I can guess who will be proven right!

    Interesting to see what the Russkies will do....
  2. It's a foregone conclusion. The Spams are already having to up-armour their new, "agile, mobile and hostile" Stryker brigades to protect them against RPGs.
  3. Thought the spams would have learnt their lesson from GW2 with the ammount of Abrams that were knocked out with RPG, while our CR2 and Warriers suffered no caualties. Mind you sying that we are looking at going to a lighter role :? :? :?
  4. It's not a new debate. Light means you can turn up anywhere fast but die in a hail of RPG rounds - heavy means you would have won if you'd turned up on time.

    The ideal would be a vehicle with C-130 mobility and CR2 protection. However, regardless of what the defence contractors say I think the laws of physics and enemy ingenuity will scupper that one. For instance, the much touted RPG shield which uses an electrical discharge to disrupt the metal jet from a heat round may not be much use against a HESH or FAE round - and active defence systems are fine as long as you don't want infantry to operate nearby. Which is a problem in urban areas.

    The US are looking at a solution where the enemy is engaged using precision indirect fires - which is fine when you have a large battlespace to play with but no use whatsoever in downtown Baghdad.

    Personally I look at the Israelis and the Russians - both with hard won experience in urban areas - who base their vehicles on a tank chassis a(or would if they could afford it in the case of the Russians).

    But why do we need to go into urban areas ? Simple. If we can't the opposition will just sit in there and wait for us. Providing a CR2 protection solution for a C130 portable vehicle in high intensity warfare in open country is quite possible. Doing the same in an urban area - probably isn't. Look carefully at the weasel words in the defence contractors handouts for FCS and FRES and make your own mind up.
  5. Seem to remember talking about this in the 'Armour and a more deployable armour thread' in the Staff College forum.....still very much not convinced by FRES...whither the Op Analysis from TELIC viz WR/CR operations in urban areas with infantry support....?
  6. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    I have a 2 mb power point presentation on the armour of the M1A2 and what got thrown at it in GW2 which I can send to anyone who pm's me with an email address.
  7. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Did a CR2 not blue on blue another CR2 with the loss of half the crew?
  8. Yea sorry I forgot that one.
  9. Being slightly thick and having a blonde moment. Hw do I pm you with my e-mail address???
  10. Click on Mr happys PM button (Private Message) Then send him your E-mail Addy
  11. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Oh she clicked she clicked....

    And I gave it to 'er...
  12. msr

    msr LE

    Mr H,

    Is it this one from Team Abrams ?


    Wouldn't look to the Sovs...

    In December 1994, the Russian Army entered the break-away Republic of Chechnya and attempted to seize the Chechen capital of Grozny from the march. After this attempt failed, the Russian Army spent two months in deliberate house-to-house fighting before finally capturing the city.(18 ) During the fighting, the Russian conscript force was badly mauled by the more-mature, dedicated Chechen force. During the first month of the conflict, Russian forces wrote off 225 armored vehicles as non-repairable battle losses. This represents 10.23% of the armored vehicles initially committed to the campaign.(19) The bulk of these losses were due to shoulder-fired antitank weapons and antitank grenades.

  13. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

  14. I'm talking about the kit they've developed post Grozny - as you point out the deficiencies of their current fleet were cruelly exposed. They can't afford to buy it mind ....

    Off the top of my head theres the BTR-T - a tank chassis holding a section, the BMP-T - a tank chassis plus section plus cannon/ATGW, a tank chassis based fire support vehicle with cannon, ATGW, MGs, grenade launchers etc, and the TOS - tank chassis with an armoured box of direct fire FAE rockets on top. Plus they've extended the reactive armour coverage on existing vehicles and made a note to stick to that part of their doctrine that states that conventional motor-rifle troops are not to be used in urban areas.
  15. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    They've also got an offensive anti-missile defence or two.

    1. Two great big IR lights designed to 'blind' incoming FF missiles such as Hellfire (??) and whatever the new US Man portable thing is.

    2. Close in explosive claymore (about 6 per T-80) that when the missile gets close (note the new T-80s have radar) the 'claymore' shoots up in the air and explodes firing ball bearings down and towards the incoming thus smashing into the incoming missile.

    On the passive side they've double reactive armour now too.

    This and other spotters info brought to you from Firepower 2000.