New Army Secretary hates the Army?

[Sea Skimmer]

Indeed, but as designed/built, they were good against HMG, RPG, if memory serves, upgrades have accomplished the rest.
And I suspect such protection is not from every angle, correct?.

It annoys me when people complain about things while not understanding the design specifications and whether they are met or not. As I said, Bradlys are a survivable vehicle, but not invulnerable.

I believe the original design called for protection against 23mm on the frontal arc and 14.5mm on the rest. Since then the thing has gained about ten tons of armor, and is now protected against some forms of 30mm on the frontal arc and part of the flanks. Spaced protection now lets it take low level RPG hits frontally and on part of the flanks as well.

Course I'm going totaly off memory, I'd need to look it up at home to be sure.

[Vympel]

I believe the original design called for protection against 23mm on the frontal arc and 14.5mm on the rest. Since then the thing has gained about ten tons of armor, and is now protected against some forms of 30mm on the frontal arc and part of the flanks. Spaced protection now lets it take low level RPG hits frontally and on part of the flanks as well.

Course I'm going totaly off memory, I'd need to look it up at home to be sure.

Sounds about right to me, though 23mm on the frontal arc is one odd calibre to choose- they must've been expecting ZSU-23s to turn their guns on them or something

[Vympel]

Lightening the Army up ENTIRELY- i.e. the FCS concept, to me, is a damn fool idea.

The premise is that lightly armored forces will be just as lethal and survivable as traditional heavy forces.

How do they try and sell this extremely dubious concept?

When they say 'survivability', they don't mean armour. Instead, they sell the idea that a 20 ton, 8x8 wheeled vehicle can be just as survivable and lethal, if not more so, than an M1 tank by having

- Situational Awareness
- Signature Management
- Active Defense Systems (in the scrapped 40-ton FCS-T idea, this took the form of a turret-mounted high-energy laser, which is of course for a system to be ready by 2008 is a ridiculous pipe dream that has been dropped)
- Long-range weapons

to simply avoid combat with any vehicle or force that is capable of killing it- which at 20-tons is a damn lot- everything from a BMP upwards in terms of firepower.

For a moment, let's just replace the proven M1 MBT/M2 IFV in OIF and replace them with the FCS systems. Expect the following, assuming the technology is actually workable:

- FCS LOS (the tank replacement) destroys many enemy vehicles with OTH weapons while using its vastly superior sensor suite (thermal imagers) etc and it's ETC 105-120mm main gun to effortlessly destroy Iraqi AFVs that get within visual range. The latter is nothing the M1 isn't perfectly capable of already. The former was scheduled for the M1 (the TERM program), but was cancelled.

- But, what happens when the vehicle takes a hit?! Who are we kidding here- the 100mm gun of the T-55, the 73mm gun of the BMP-1, not to mention the 125mm piece of the T-72 is capable of turning these wheeled toys into flaming wrecks with a single hit- hell, it could disable them without penetrating them by using HEF rounds.

- And lets not forget infantry. The OCSW defending the FCS LOS will inflict casualties on the enemy far in excess of the current M2HB on the M1, but who says they can't put it on the M1? We can also give the M1 canister and HEF rounds for anti-infantry work.

- Now, what about survivability against infantry? They're expecting to make FCS LOS light AT weapon proof, but I don't see how this is doable on a 20-ton vehicle except along the frontal arc, unless you add applique armor after which the vehicle is not 20-tons anymore. More casualties. Toss in ATGMs. More casualties. Toss in shell explosions/ shrapnel/ heavy-machine gun fire. Immobilized vehicles, tires shredded- no defense against that.

All Iraq did was reaffirm that vehicles get hit in combat- the Iraqis were equipped with the worst equipment this side of frigging ... Togo, and US forces still copped casaulties, including M1 tanks. And they wanna make the casualties worse?

And how long can they rely on the fact that the enemies will suck? Not every bad guy is going to have 30 year old monkey-model T-72s with mechanical coincidence rangefinders, no thermal imagers, crappy airdefense, non-existent air force, and incompetent troops.

Look at the ugly future

[Falcon]

My point was that any armored personal carrier which can beat a tank, even a substandard one, is fairly decent

That's only because of the TOW-2B missile the Brad carries. Which can
also be carried by pretty much anything down to M151 Jeep level

Actually I thought it was due to a DU round fired by the vehicle? I heard about it on the news during the war, but they may not have known what they were talking about.

[Vympel]

Actually I thought it was due to a DU round fired by the vehicle? I heard about it on the news during the war, but they may not have known what they were talking about.

At close range, it's possible, but only from a favorable angle.

From the flanks, at close-range, a 25mm APDU round from a Bradley can knock out an export T-72M/M1, because the armor is thin and not very advanced. From the front, it's theoretically possible, if you've got the balls to try it while it's main gun is pointed at you and you have the luck for one of the rounds to hit a weakpoint, in particular, the area just around the main gun. However, it's not nearly a sure thing enough to make the Bradley a 'tank killer', and again, it's from short range only.

This isn't surprising though- we're talking modern ammunition against 30 year old POS tanks.

Against a proper-standard T-72A and T-72B, the chances of a front/side kill with them, even at close-range, is practically nil- the Soviet standard models were known as 'Dolly Parton' and 'Super Dolly Parton' because their armor was so thick and bulged out (not to mention composite- though not Chobham quality). The T-72A, had it fought NATO forces in the 1980s, would've been facing 105mm ammunition that it was perfectly capable of deflecting at normal battlefield ranges- even without explosive reactive armor. The T-72BM, the penultimate version, can withstand 120mm hits, possibly even without it's heavy ERA.

[Rubberanvil]

Actually I thought it was due to a DU round fired by the vehicle? I heard about it on the news during the war, but they may not have known what they were talking about.

The 25mm cannon is really useful against everything (APC, IFV, unarmored vehicles and etc.)but tanks. Bradleys have been mauled if not outright destroyed when they fought within range of Iraqi tanks guns during Desert Storm even with allied tank support.

Current Bradley model. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bradley/

[Raptor 597]

Anyone knows whats becoming of Eric Shenski? HE's being forced to resign or so I hear. We'll still be in the Army afterwards?

[Axis Kast]

By the time the FCS appears in our arsenal, I’m fairly certain most man-portable RPG weapons will be unable to deliver a reliable first strike unless we’re talking about “over-the-top” kills.

That said, I agree with Howedar. The T-80 is already technically capable of matching the M1A2 – which isn’t scheduled to receive any upgrades even past the 2008 deployment date of the FCS (which is sans the laser interceptor defense they originally planned to mount). While the Chinese might build an up-gunned behemoth, it will be nothing of the value of say a T-80 or T-90 MBT, each of which are more maneuverable, better-protected (from a technological point of view), and more easily-proliferated by certain key enemies.

[Rubberanvil]

By the time the FCS appears in our arsenal, I’m fairly certain most man-portable RPG weapons will be unable to deliver a reliable first strike unless we’re talking about “over-the-top” kills.

I really doubt the FCS can survive anything which can seriously threatened a M1A2 SEP tank.

[Axis Kast]

With new British technologies on the way? By 2008, both vehicles will probably be relatively safe from the RPG. Or at least one hopes.

[Rubberanvil]

With new British technologies on the way? By 2008, both vehicles will probably be relatively safe from the RPG. Or at least one hopes.

It's not one RPG I'm concerned about, it's the shitload of RPGs flying along side the one RPG I'm concerned about.

[Rubberanvil]

[Hit the "Submit" button too soon]

The Iraq War proved again tanks are fire magnets and anything not as well armored as them will be hard pressed to managed surviving the shots which do hit.

[Vympel]

With new British technologies on the way? By 2008, both vehicles will probably be relatively safe from the RPG. Or at least one hopes.

The RPG rounds that the Russians have in service since the early 90s are "not your father's" RPG. These are rockets capable of penetrating 600 and 750mm of RHA respectively, on top of the ability to pierce at least light ERA, compared to 300mm on the first models, which is what most third-world shit-holes are still equipped with. And that's just for the RPG-7V. RPG-29 and disposable RPG-27 is a whole other issue.

Personally, I doubt they'll be installing this British powered armor on any of their vehicles.

[Axis Kast]

As a result of Iraq, most Western armies are likely revising protection schemes for armored vehicles a la the British.

If you don’t believe they’ll install the power armor, should we assume you also believe the M1 will not receive any further upgrades whatsoever as far as protection goes?

[Vympel]

As a result of Iraq, most Western armies are likely revising protection schemes for armored vehicles a la the British.

I doubt it. Just look at how Rumsfeld is brandishing the Iraq steamroller as some sort of vindication, when it was heavy maneuver forces that did the job, just like they're supposed to.

If you don’t believe they’ll install the power armor, should we assume you also believe the M1 will not receive any further upgrades whatsoever as far as protection goes?

Well, definitely not the power armor. But just before the end of major combat they shipped out some heavy grills for fitting onto the rear of M1 tanks to protect the engine against RPG hits- time honored thing that armies seem to habitually forget; the Russians originally started with such grills with T-34/85s in Berlin in 1945. The US also fitted them to tanks on Vietnam. The Russians did away with them after they started whacking copious amounts of ERA on everything, though.

But that's just small ad hoc stuff. As for major protection upgrades like ERA kits, this power armor, or bolt-on applique, I don't think it'll happen. Firstly, to upgrade any previous mark of the M1 to the most current M1A2SEP standard costs more than the tanks themselves originally cost, supposedly-not to mention that at 70 tons, it's pretty difficult to upgrade the protection anymore- they're already the heaviest tanks in service, with the possible exception of the Merkava, with it's suspicious lack of speed for it's specified weight.

On a new vehicle, possibly- but on this 20-ton FCS thing ... nah. They might be satisfied with the MEXAS applique armor being developed for Stryker, which is supposed to stop the most common RPG rounds.

[Axis Kast]

I doubt it. Just look at how Rumsfeld is brandishing the Iraq steamroller as some sort of vindication, when it was heavy maneuver forces that did the job, just like they're supposed to.

That’s Rumsfeld. But most observers are probably quaking in their boots at the thought of what more modern RPGs in competent hands could do. The British and Russians are, at least, worried about it.

Well, definitely not the power armor. But just before the end of major combat they shipped out some heavy grills for fitting onto the rear of M1 tanks to protect the engine against RPG hits- time honored thing that armies seem to habitually forget; the Russians originally started with such grills with T-34/85s in Berlin in 1945. The US also fitted them to tanks on Vietnam. The Russians did away with them after they started whacking copious amounts of ERA on everything, though.

But that's just small ad hoc stuff. As for major protection upgrades like ERA kits, this power armor, or bolt-on applique, I don't think it'll happen. Firstly, to upgrade any previous mark of the M1 to the most current M1A2SEP standard costs more than the tanks themselves originally cost, supposedly-not to mention that at 70 tons, it's pretty difficult to upgrade the protection anymore- they're already the heaviest tanks in service, with the possible exception of the Merkava, with it's suspicious lack of speed for it's specified weight.

On a new vehicle, possibly- but on this 20-ton FCS thing ... nah. They might be satisfied with the MEXAS applique armor being developed for Stryker, which is supposed to stop the most common RPG rounds.

“Grilles?” Never heard of ‘em.

The powered armor isn’t necessarily all that expensive. It’s essentially a metal sheath that fits over particularly vulnerable areas and is electrified during combat.

As for bolt-on applique? It appears that’s where we’re going. Ablative stuff meant to take hits and be popped off after combat.

[Sea Skimmer]

All Iraq did was reaffirm that vehicles get hit in combat- the Iraqis were equipped with the worst equipment this side of frigging ... Togo, and US forces still copped casaulties, including M1 tanks. And they wanna make the casualties worse?

Togo can actually field a fair sized force with T-72's and BMP-2's.

[Vympel]

Togo can actually field a fair sized force with T-72's and BMP-2's.

Serious?

[Sea Skimmer]

Togo can actually field a fair sized force with T-72's and BMP-2's.

Serious?

Supposedly they picked up a bunch in the late 1990's, 200 was the figure I read. Now by fair sized I mean by western African standards, there army is only around 7,000 men. Though they do spend more on defence then most of the small nations in the area, little over 2% of there GDP, most are under 1.5, many under 1%.

Basically, find another third world shithole to knock

[Rubberanvil]

On a new vehicle, possibly- but on this 20-ton FCS thing ... nah. They might be satisfied with the MEXAS applique armor being developed for Stryker, which is supposed to stop the most common RPG rounds.

The FCS and Stryker when used like an infantry support vehicle, most they really need is to stop RPGs. IMHO if they're going to be having problems with RPGs and people in charge them want to fight it out with tanks, WTF gives?

[Sea Skimmer]

The FCS and Stryker when used like an infantry support vehicle, most they really need is to stop RPGs. IMHO if they're going to be having problems with RPGs and people in charge them want to fight it out with tanks, WTF gives?

No actually they don't want to fire it out with tanks. The assumption is tanks can mostly be located and destroyed at long range. With the increases in sensor technology and weapons where seeing that’s not all that unreasonable.

The biggest threat is anti tank missiles. Thing is, take a small one like the Bill-2 and fire it at FCS. FCS system dies. Fire the same missile at a three times as heavy M1A2. M1A2 dies. Same holds true for a great many other systems. So what exactly was the point of all that extra armor? Well there wasn’t any.

FCS is working on the assumption that the future threat systems will be impossible to stop with any reasonable level of protection, so we might as well just attempt to protect aginst area fires like artillery and very light systems like RPG's and try and get some advantages out of a smaller vehicle.

[Rubberanvil]

No actually they don't want to fire it out with tanks. The assumption is tanks can mostly be located and destroyed at long range. With the increases in sensor technology and weapons where seeing that’s not all that unreasonable.

Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. Also Rumsfield is assuming the US Armed Forces is never going to get in a fight with anybody with a decent military, whether or not he'll be in charge or not down the road.

so we might as well just attempt to protect aginst area fires like artillery

I think you mean shrapnel for artillary blast, otherwise how is the FCS going to survive a direct hit on the top from 100mm and up, when even the Abrams tanks can be destroyed or severaly(sp) disabled from a hit.

[Sea Skimmer]

Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. Also Rumsfield is assuming the US Armed Forces is never going to get in a fight with anybody with a decent military, whether or not he'll be in charge or not down the road.

If we assume nothing, then there is no point in deploying any new equipment.

I think you mean shrapnel for artillary blast,

Which would be an area fire.

[Vympel]

No actually they don't want to fire it out with tanks. The assumption is tanks can mostly be located and destroyed at long range. With the increases in sensor technology and weapons where seeing that’s not all that unreasonable.

The biggest threat is anti tank missiles. Thing is, take a small one like the Bill-2 and fire it at FCS. FCS system dies. Fire the same missile at a three times as heavy M1A2. M1A2 dies. Same holds true for a great many other systems. So what exactly was the point of all that extra armor? Well there wasn’t any.

Except it's positing the biggest threat instead of the full spectrum of threats, some of which are much more likely than others. Bill-2 being fired at your M1? Not bloody likely. T-55 sending a 100mm shell your way? Much more bloody likely. That's my problem with the whole thing.

[Sea Skimmer]

Except it's positing the biggest threat instead of the full spectrum of threats, some of which are much more likely than others. Bill-2 being fired at your M1? Not bloody likely. T-55 sending a 100mm shell your way? Much more bloody likely. That's my problem with the whole thing.

Course, ten years from now when FCS stars seeing combat the Bill-2 will be a couple decades old and we will have seen a whole new generation of anti armor systems. You yourself have often pointed out that the US won't always be facing third rate equipment and training.