Capabilities of Armour as seen by the Inexperienced

[Unknown C/S]

One thing to keep in mind is that the law's of physics (and common sense) take a detour before entering the Gagetown training area (including....actually, ESPECIALLY J7).



Al

I have always maintained a theory that the Otnabog Rifles dug those hillside swamps during one of their 950,000 withdrawls in an attempt to slow down the Armoured school advance.
Abandoned basements........I think not, they are foxholes dug by the Rifles soldiers who, given their size, had girlfriends and wives who hung out in the Camelot  (big women)

 

[Franko]

Ask Franko if a tank would have got stuck where he got his veh (in the picture) stuck. Probably not.

McKinney defile...facing south on eastern edge of Lawfield road...north of McKinney road, second defile.

You and me both have taken tanks through there many times in our younger years...and never got stuck.

But what do we know?    :

Regards

 

[Unknown C/S]

The fact that you haven't editted this post yet is either: A) A testament to your unswavering belief that you are right, or B) the fact that Jane's has too many pictures of vehicles on parade squares and in trade show's and not enough in "real world" settings.

You omitted  C) He is occupied with the WWll Welland Canal Guard re-enactors meeting.

 

[TCBF]

"The problem with Dog & Ponies at the local University is the potential cold welcome"

- Well, at $356 a KM (or whatever it is now), I hadn't considered  the tanks visiting YOU, but rather YOU visiting the Srats, where you would - with your class - get to see a lot more than just tanks.  Also Coyote, LAV, TOW, simulators, SAT, etc.

Get the prof to call a PAffO and make a date for a weekday.

As for the tank actually going downtown - it's been done during our urban studies and whatnot in 2000.  For UofA, it would take a wee bit of OPSEC, where only the Prof knows the day, then the class walks outside and a tank just pulls up.  The wackos have to wade through a wall of history student flesh to get to the tank, and the campus security girls can practice their 'special' holds.

 

[Lehner]

I notice, that we are not permitted to assume anything in this discussion, but you can all you want.  Rather one sided, don't you think?

Where do you get the assumption that one of the incidents was a patrol and not a convoy escort?  That statement seems to have been pulled right out of thin air. 

CBC is where I gathered the assumption from.

I am not assuming a lie that targets and attacks an individual on these boards. Nothing is one sided, you're reading things into this discussion.

 

[Lehner]

Well, I'm not sure if I want to lock this thing, or just sit back and watch.

Lehner, I guess there's no need for you to fill in your profile, it's all right here:

If you are the "student" of military matters that you claim to be, then perhaps you would be starting to understand that not all knowledge comes from such sources.  The aspect they cannot provide is that gained through practical experience.  Also, such sources usually discuss single items of equipment, seldom offering solid comparison data, except between vehicles of like design and purpose.

You are trying to argue a comparative case between tanks and armoured personnel carriers (or infantry fighting vehicles, if you prefer the term in this case). These two vehicle types have different roles, different designs and different purposes.  They are each optimized for different situations (your reading should have made this clear) and they are employed differently in various tactical situations (your reading, basic extrapolation of that knowledge, and the information provided to you here should make that clear).

Your fellow correspondents on this thread have laid out much of their own experience for you - in both tanks, and APCs (M113 family and LAV family).  Is their actual experience to be discounted in comparison to information you have read?  Has reading made you more of an expert in the capabilities and tactical employment of armoured vehicles than their collective experience?

I would suggest that you reverse into cover, assess your tactical situation, and perhaps select a different line of advance.  Continuing to charge forward on your current course could easily find such threads locked (with increasing speed as they develop) and you may even find yourself introduced to the warning System which was described in the Conduct Guidelines you agreed to on registering with the site.

I never claimed to be a "student" of military matters. You are horrible at spinning things. My current course is not grounds for an intro to the warning system. I fully understand that vehicle types have different roles and very different capabilities, but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can.

 

[TCBF]

" but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can."

- There are, but name some of them, I am interested in your choices.

"... and never got stuck."

- I have taken some pretty good "Stuck" pictures, both tracked and wheeled!

Tom

 

[Kat Stevens]

Anyone who hasn't stuck a Leo is not employing his vehicle to its fullest potential... :tank:

 

[Lehner]

" but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can."

- There are, but name some of them, I am interested in your choices.

"... and never got stuck."

- I have taken some pretty good "Stuck" pictures, both tracked and wheeled!

Tom

Where did I say "...and never got stuck"?

Italy and Northern Africa would be choices. There's places on Vancouver Island British Columbia and the Coastal Mountains where I highly doubt a Leo could venture.

I think my initial choice of words pissed people off (people that are easily irritable and get defensive real easy no less)... would you not agree?

 

[Kat Stevens]

....because you came in here with a "can-you-hear-me-in-the-back-of-the-lecture-hall?" tone, and basically told people who have spent most of their adult lives in these machines, that they were full of crap.  And, before you say it, no, I will not tell you where you said that.  JANES is written by writers, not soldiers who hang their meat on the line in these contraptions every day.  I implore you, STFU, and listen and learn. There is a reason you have two ears and eyes, but only one mouth.

 

[JBP]

I never claimed to be a "student" of military matters. You are horrible at spinning things. My current course is not grounds for an intro to the warning system. I fully understand that vehicle types have different roles and very different capabilities, but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can.

So.. What's your point then? There are areas a tank cannot go but a wheeled vehicle can.... Ahh, yeah, just like there are areas a tank CAN go but a wheeled vehicle can't. Sort of like saying, "There are areas a car can drive, but that an aircraft cannot fly".... What is your POINT man???

Okay, I'm not even going to talk about LAV III's, Leo's or ANY vehicles, although even as your basic little reservist infantry grunt, my eyes bulged out at your assumption when I read your first post... I'm going to try and be nice and put it this way... You have NO experience in these vehicles. You have no military training of any kind, and don't even know where, why or how we would employ these vehicles or in relation to an actual battle or in relation to actual tactics.

Read as many books as you like, I read Janes crap too, I have Janes Armoured books and Aircraft books and you name it other military books, but I'm an infantry grunt who has never had a ride in a CF military vehicle other than a few jeeps and other light-to-medium transport vehicles and one of those ugly-ass ambulances (sorry to those who operate those!!! GJ on my "injury" though!) so I'd be retarded to make assuptions about how they operate. I can talk about a C-7 assault rifle, that's what I use. I can't talk about the CF-18 Hornet being able to pull 9 G's or being able to land without a runway...

It's simple logic.

So....

Again...

What was your point? If it was this ----> but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can.
Yeah, and?

What?

:

 

[George Wallace]

Italy and Northern Africa would be choices. There's places on Vancouver Island British Columbia and the Coastal Mountains where I highly doubt a Leo could venture.

I thought you said that you read books and Journals?

Italy and North Africa?  Seems to me Rommel and Montgomery employed Tanks and tracked vehicles quite effectively in North Africa.  Tanks were also employed in Sicily and Italy. 

Let just put it this way......There is no place that a LAV can go, that a Tank can not go.  There are, however, a great deal of places that a Tank can go, that a LAV CAN NOT.

Do you even know how wide a LAV is?

Do you know how hard it is to take any vehicle from the LAV Family, and turn it around?    Let's just say that you can't in any of the instances that 'you may be considering as a place that a tank can not go'.  We have already mentioned the Tank's ability to turn on a dime using "Neutral Turns" or turn in tight place using "Pivot Turns"; but I am sure you don't know what the difference in the two is.  A LAV does not make "Three Point" turns on roads, they make "Forty Plus Turns" (often getting stuck). 

Sorry, but you don't have the qualifications to argue in these forums.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I never claimed to be a "student" of military matters. You are horrible at spinning things.

I apologize, I took this to mean you actually had an interest in these matters:

I don't have any military experience, I just read Janes articles and books as well as strategypage.com.

I didn't mean to infer that you were actually a student under formal studies of military matters, nor did I expect you to take the statement literally, hence the quotation marks.

My current course is not grounds for an intro to the warning system.

Your posting style and your refusal to accept the observations of those will practical experience come under this clause from the Conduct Guidelines:

You will not troll the boards or feed the trolls. This is making posts that intentionally create hostile arguments, or responding to such posts in the same hostile tone.

I fully understand that vehicle types have different roles and very different capabilities,

This, at least, is a start, although it does beg the question of how you could start with the presumption that tanks could simply replace LAVs without discussing whether or not the LAV may have been selected in the first place as the most suitable vehicle based on characteristics it might not share with the tank.

but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can.

I look forward to your further explanations of this point. Please keep in mind the distinction between technical capability and tactical practicality.  Saying a vehicle "can't" go where no experienced crew commander would think of taking it is a bogus argument.

 

[Franko]

I fully understand that vehicle types have different roles and very different capabilities, but I also know there are areas where a tank cannot go but a Wheeled vehicle like a LAV can.

You obviously do not understand nor do you have the expertise.....

I give up. You are a troll, plain and simple.    :

Regards

 

[GAP]

I am way outdated here, but we rode around in '68 version of US Marine's Amtrac and we rode ontop, nobody wanted to be inside sitting ontop of the fuel cells when hit with an RPG. I love what I am hearing about the LAV III, the firepower/mobility/egress. Things sure have progressed, and in the intervening years whole galaxies of changes have been made in LAV's. Nice to hear

 

[TCBF]

"Where did I say "...and never got stuck"?" - Lehner

- You didn't - I was quoting someone else.  Kindly pay attention.

Tom

 

[redleafjumper]

I think we are waiting to hear from Lehner exactly where a LAV can go that an MBT cannot. In fairness, the title of the post does indicate that an inexperienced Lehner was throwing up a ball to see who hit it - that discussion had potential.  It went off the rails when some very experienced people with real-world experience weren't taken as credible.

I well remember seeing the old (then new) C1 Leopards roar past us infantry types at high speed as if our M113s (also tracked) were standing still.  It was amazing to see how well those RCDs moved those big machines across country.  The boys had nice things to say about the suspension and ride.  It is true that there are places that vehicles can't go; that's why we have infantry, a.k.a. 'foot soldiers'.  Like others on this thread, I have a lot of trouble imagining a place where a LAV could go that a Leopard could not.

Perhaps this discussion has run its course.

 

[TCBF]

It would appear that young  Lehner inadvertantly popped a hornet's nest - unaware  of the  bad vibes related to the "wheeled versus tracked" debate in Canada.

Tom

 

[Franko]

After a bit of a cooling period I'll re-open this thread.

Please note...some posts have been removed to get the thread going again.

There is a legitimate discussion.....and perhaps misunderstandings can be worked out here.

Lehner....I suggest you stop ducking questions by changing the essence of you posts.

Regards

 

[LIKELY]

I can't believe I was bored enough to read this whole thread.....Jeez, I gotta get backin.