Capabilities of Armour as seen by the Inexperienced

[Lehner]

I wouldn't say that MBTs are out of fashion, they're just not feasible for a small army.

The Dutch and Swedes still use them.

MBTs are proving quite useful in Iraq and Israel currently. God rest their souls, but the lads involved in the roll-overs recently in Afghanistan would have greatly benefited from MBTs as opposed to the LAV-IIIs. Don't get me wrong, I really love the LAV-IIIs and their setups, but I think MBTs would have better served their interest.

 

[a_majoor]

I think the two issues are not exactly related: LAV III's are used for protected mobility in providing presence patrols, while MBTs are direct fire platforms which would have limited utility in that kind of mission. MBTs can be rolled, and some were lost that way in Iraq, usually by driving into an unexpected irrigation ditch.

Perhaps there are automotive modifications which could be applied to the LAV to improve its stability. In the future I suspect that a new vehicle designed for air deployable medium forces (limited to fitting the size weight parameters of a C-130) would not resemble a LAV at all, which would lead to a smaller and lower vehicle. The center of gravity would be lower as a result of the design parameters, so as a side benefit it would be less prone to rollover accidents. (On the other hand, it might be susceptible to something else, nothing is perfect).

 

[Lehner]

I think the two issues are not exactly related: LAV III's are used for protected mobility in providing presence patrols, while MBTs are direct fire platforms which would have limited utility in that kind of mission. MBTs can be rolled, and some were lost that way in Iraq, usually by driving into an unexpected irrigation ditch.

Perhaps there are automotive modifications which could be applied to the LAV to improve its stability. In the future I suspect that a new vehicle designed for air deployable medium forces (limited to fitting the size weight parameters of a C-130) would not resemble a LAV at all, which would lead to a smaller and lower vehicle. The center of gravity would be lower as a result of the design parameters, so as a side benefit it would be less prone to rollover accidents. (On the other hand, it might be susceptible to something else, nothing is perfect).

The only thing a LAVIII can really outperform a MBT per se (imo) is cross-country ability. You can move a wheeled vehicle faster and across terrain types that MBTs would struggle with.

 

[TCBF]

WHAT?  The only terain type a LAV can beat a Leopard on is a Safeway parking lot.

I'll get in a Leo, you get in a LAV, and we will play 'follow me', and see if you can stay with me.

Buckle up.

 

[Journeyman]

WHAT? 

It's too late in the game to start insisting that opinions posted here be informed opinions 

I've got $20 on the Leopard....to win.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The only thing a LAVIII can really outperform a MBT per se (imo) is cross-country ability. You can move a wheeled vehicle faster and across terrain types that MBTs would struggle with.

That's hilarious!

Obviously no experience, no knowledge, and no clue.

 

[Lehner]

That's hilarious!

Obviously no experience, no knowledge, and no clue.

Seeing as how you know it all, tell me how you move Heavy Armour across narrow mountain passes?

 

[Lehner]

WHAT?  The only terain type a LAV can beat a Leopard on is a Safeway parking lot.

I'll get in a Leo, you get in a LAV, and we will play 'follow me', and see if you can stay with me.

Buckle up.

Sure and when I pass you, can I say eat my dust?

 

[Kirkhill]

Which of you gets to decide on the race course?

 

[Lehner]

Which of you gets to decide on the race course?

Neither since we would pick the course that highlights our strengths and weakens the other guys?

Alas, that's my point. There are terrain types were Main Battle Tanks are too large to traverse. There are gradings where the LAV cannot venture because a) too steep and might/will cause a roll-over b) too step and might/will cause loss of traction...

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The Leo can cruise through terrain that would have a LAV screaming for a recovery vehicle.  Tactically, the MBT has unmatchable maneuverability.  Given a few hundred km to patrol on a daily basis, or a rapid advance of the same, and the LAV shines.  Strategically, the road maneuverability of the LAV gives it a range that no MBT can match.  Tracks are unbeatable on rough ground, tracks are touchy, and labour intensive when they go.  While a LAV may not handle so well without one or two tires, if an MBT throws a track (and they do), it may as well have grown roots.  LAV's are just the thing for armoured recce, but in an engagement with heavy armour, or against trained infantry with good postions and modern anti-armour weapons they'd be death traps. The things that heavy armour does are just not survivable by light armour.  The sensors, main gun punch, ammunition capacity, and serious armour that make heavy armour so deadly simply cannot be downsized enough to fit a light wheeled hull.  That being said, I don't see any MBT being able to pull the duty that our LAV's are doing in Afghanistan; putting those kind of klicks on an MBT would send it straight to the scrapyard.

 

[Unknown C/S]

Seeing as how you know it all, tell me how you move Heavy Armour across narrow mountain passes?

Same way you move a LAV....................Tell the driver to advance

Now, have you changed your opinion based on vehicle width? Or is this about the speed thing?

Why are you "traversing" (travelling along) a narrow mountain pass? Normally they are avoided regardless of Veh type

However, if you mean can they move through a long defile (such as a mountain pass), then that is a tactical command level decision. It would be based on intelligence and the ability to support such a movement.(air or ground recce, map info, sat imaging, or eyes on the ground) Same for any movement that funnels vehicles or personel through a tight route/location be they MBT, LAV, HLVW or G Wagons

You are seriously out of your league here

Wheels are outstanding on hard surface. Tracks (MBT's) are designed for their cross country capability. (research characteristcs of Armour) Once you leave the hard stand, 99% of Crewman would rather be rolling on tracks

You do not have turret time, obviously. Nor do you have track experience.

Time to go back to your "Soldier of Fortune" magazine and pick a different topic. (read one of the long articles that gives you more info and come back better armed)

 

[Lehner]

Same way you move a LAV....................Tell the driver to advance

Now, have you changed your opinion based on vehicle width? Or is this about the speed thing?

Why are you traversing a narrow mountain pass? Normally they are avoided regardless of Veh type

However, if you mean can they move through a long defile (such as a mountain pass), then that is a tactical command level decision. It would be based on intelligence and the ability to support such a movement.(air or ground recce, map info, sat imaging, or eyes on the ground) Same for any movement that funnels vehicles or personel through a tight route/location be they MBT, LAV, HLVW or G Wagons

You are seriously out of your league here

Wheels are outstanding on hard surface. Tracks (MBT's) are designed for their cross country capability. (research characteristcs of Armour) Once you leave the hard stand, 99% of Crewman would rather be rolling on tracks

You do not have turret time, obviously. Nor do you have track experience.

Time to go back to your "Soldier of Fortune" magazine and pick a different topic. (read one of the long articles that gives you more info and come back better armed)

I have not changed my position on this. If you would carefully read and not assume, you wouldn't make your posts the way you do.

Ironic you seem all knowing but have to question why you would have to traverse a narrow pass. These terrain types exist worldwide, I am confident you know geography?

I don't read soldier of fortune and I would appreciate you losing your arrogant tone and your "can't be wrong attitude".

There are narrow roadways in Europe that a tank cannot traverse but a LAV can, just as an example.

So instead of attacking me and assuming, why not put a little effort into understanding?

 

[a_majoor]

I understand you have little or no idea what you are talking about.

A LAV in Afghanistan is used for presence patrols, convou escorts and recce/surveillance (Coyote). A Leopard MBT cannot do any of these roles, so even if we had a Leopard armoured division in Afghanistan, they would not be on the roads for any of these reasons.

The tactical mobility of a Leopard, or any other tracked vehicle, would be superior once you get off the roads, but in Afghanisan, this would be of fairly limited utility given the present mission. Even if the Taliban/AQ heat things up a lot further, Leopards and LAVs will not be going up the mountains after them, dismounted infantry soldiers will.

 

[Unknown C/S]

Ironic you seem all knowing but have to question why you would have to traverse a narrow pass. These terrain types exist worldwide, I am confident you know geography?



There are narrow roadways in Europe that a tank cannot traverse but a LAV can, just as an example.

1. Again. Read my response. High risk routes are avoided, unless you can reduce the risk or eliminate it armour will bypass.
There is always an alternate route, regardless of the type of vehicle.
As a_majoor stated, Tanks are not suitable for mountainous terrain. The Soviets tried it and failed. ("I am confident you have some knowledge of history?")


2. After two postings to Germany (actually cc Tanks) I can state: it would be a very poor crew commander that got his tank jammed in a narrow road in Europe. A well read map is a wonderfull thing.(there are roads too narrow for a LAV as well) In actual fact the intersections (T junctions) in built up areas present the largest obstacle. A tank can overcome this with a "neutral turn" this is impossible to do in a LAV - Recall for a minute, between 1939 to 1945 there were a "few" tanks running around. seems there was not much mention of tanks getting stuck on narrow roads........... they would bypass (go around it.) Try taking a LAV lll across a wet turnip field to bypass a village...............hmmmmm   
By the way, to armoured crewman to "traverse" in a tank means rotating the turret for target aquisition.                     

(or maybe you can give us your past experience Commanding a Leopard or a LAV in Europe)

Bottom line: The Tank is better equipped to handle off road situations period. Does it use more fuel, yes
Is there extensive maintenance required, yes. Is it difficult to transport? Certainly.  But it goes like snot cross country and will get you out of (or into) rough terrain that NO LAV can do.


Again, stay in your lane.

 

[TCBF]

"These terrain types exist worldwide, ..."

- I was a Coyote  c/s 42A on Op CHEROKEE SKY in Zabol province in Jun 2002.  Yes we traversed a mountain pass - an awful high one I thought at the time - in Coyotes and Bisons. 

"There are narrow roadways in Europe that a tank cannot traverse but a LAV can, just as an example."

- And narrower ones a LAV can't but a Lynx or Weasel could.  A LAV has better Strategic and often better Operational mobility - but not necessarily better TACTICAL mobility than a tank.

A LAV can go great guns over 95% of the ground a Leo can - tru'dat - but that 5% is the CRITICAL ground needed to access the BEST fire positions, support the INF below ground battle with an above ground fight in intimate support, and critical in the selection of covered routes when moving from fire position to fire position.

As for maint - look at the high mileages we did on FALLEX'as and in Kosovo with the tanks:  the more you use them - the less they break.

A light, strategically mobile wheeled vehicle  - when misemployed as a 'tank' - can do a superb job of getting our soldiers into a hostile area much more quickly so they can be killed even sooner.

A balanced fleet is ideal - though not immediately attainable.

 

[George Wallace]

So instead of attacking me and assuming, why not put a little effort into understanding?

The unfortunate thing with this statement, is it is you who is attacking and assuming.  You don't have any experience or understanding of what you are talking about. 

You are in fact arguing with several people who are in real life work or have worked as Tankers, Coyote and LAV Drivers, Gunners and Crew Commanders.  If you do not want to accept their word that you are wrong, you have lost all credibility. 

Please remember where you are and who you may be talking too.  You can't post incorrect assumptions here without being called on it.  Sorry.  You lose.

 

[Lehner]

I understand you have little or no idea what you are talking about.

A LAV in Afghanistan is used for presence patrols, convou escorts and recce/surveillance (Coyote). A Leopard MBT cannot do any of these roles, so even if we had a Leopard armoured division in Afghanistan, they would not be on the roads for any of these reasons.

The tactical mobility of a Leopard, or any other tracked vehicle, would be superior once you get off the roads, but in Afghanisan, this would be of fairly limited utility given the present mission. Even if the Taliban/AQ heat things up a lot further, Leopards and LAVs will not be going up the mountains after them, dismounted infantry soldiers will.

You don't understand, you merely assume that's the case simply because you don't like my choice of words.

The unfortunate thing with this statement, is it is you who is attacking and assuming.  You don't have any experience or understanding of what you are talking about. 

You are in fact arguing with several people who are in real life work or have worked as Tankers, Coyote and LAV Drivers, Gunners and Crew Commanders.  If you do not want to accept their word that you are wrong, you have lost all credibility. 

Please remember where you are and who you may be talking too.  You can't post incorrect assumptions here without being called on it.  Sorry.  You loose.

I am not attacking anyone and I am certainly not assuming. I am not arguing against any truth put forth, alas you make a very weak rebuttal to what I have said. Btw, it's lose, not loose. It's a rather loose footing you have to lie when you claim I am assuming.

 

[Lehner]

1. Again. Read my response. High risk routes are avoided, unless you can reduce the risk or eliminate it armour will bypass.
There is always an alternate route, regardless of the type of vehicle.
As a_majoor stated, Tanks are not suitable for mountainous terrain. The Soviets tried it and failed. ("I am confident you have some knowledge of history?")


2. After two postings to Germany (actually cc Tanks) I can state: it would be a very poor crew commander that got his tank jammed in a narrow road in Europe. A well read map is a wonderfull thing.(there are roads too narrow for a LAV as well) In actual fact the intersections (T junctions) in built up areas present the largest obstacle. A tank can overcome this with a "neutral turn" this is impossible to do in a LAV - Recall for a minute, between 1939 to 1945 there were a "few" tanks running around. seems there was not much mention of tanks getting stuck on narrow roads........... they would bypass (go around it.) Try taking a LAV lll across a wet turnip field to bypass a village...............hmmmmm 
By the way, to armoured crewman to "traverse" in a tank means rotating the turret for target aquisition.                   

(or maybe you can give us your past experience Commanding a Leopard or a LAV in Europe)

Bottom line: The Tank is better equipped to handle off road situations period. Does it use more fuel, yes
Is there extensive maintenance required, yes. Is it difficult to transport? Certainly.  But it goes like snot cross country and will get you out of (or into) rough terrain that NO LAV can do.


Again, stay in your lane.

Don't play coy with me. A knowledge of basic geography cannot be compared to knowledge of specific history, but it's ok, I don't have a problem stating there is a difference to you.

Pay attention now, I never mentioned a thing about tanks getting stuck or armour crews becomming lost.

Perhaps I should have stated there are certain terrain types that only one can do and not the other. I didn't mean to make the vague impression that a tank couldn't go as far off-road as a LAV. Then again, you guys can't read contexual meaning (there's two sentences in my original statment) and a per se.

 

[GDawg]

Lehner,
I'm surprised a mod hasn't asked you to fill in your profile yet.
I would really like to know what sort of experience you have to back up your statements.
One thing I've learned from being in the military and reading these forums is that experience always wins against "book learnin'" and pure theory.