Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[Bhadra]

Before you start to write nonsense, check the structure of US Army, that have armored divisions.

US Army have 1st Armored Division, 1st Armored Cavalry Division, 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Infantry Divisions, all these divisions have Armored Brigade Combat Teams as their core units, and are practically Armor-Mechanized Divisions despite their names which are nothing more thant traditional names left to them to honor their history.

These divisions have 15 ABCT's (formerly known as HBCT's), in the same time, there are only approx 8 SBCT's in US Army.

So where do you see the future of the Stryker? Not to mention that US Army do not see Stryker as survivable enough, and it will be replaced in future by tracked GCV IFV and AMPV which will also replace most of M2 IFV's and M113's.

BTW I could never expect that you think that people around you are so stupid that they will not check the structure of US Army and will not see your lies.

United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Accept finally that you and your idiotic ideas were defeated by reality. And accept that US Army do not want to base it's armed forces core, the Brigade Combat Teams on Strykers.

Stryker was allways seen as interim vehicle, and allways be interim vehicle intended to be replaced in front units as quickly as possible. US Army also never was very fond about wheeled combat vehicles, US Army preffer tracks over wheeles, they also preffer good armor protection and firepower instead of lightweight coffins for soldiers.

This is why their officers says openly, US Army will use heavier and better protected vehicles in future, both tracked and wheeled.



USA does not need to borrow money from China, as US economy is still stronger than Chinese.

I knew you will sphew your ignorant arrogance. But I expected you to have known this :

Transformation of the United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bhadra]

Modular Combat Brigades

Main article: Brigade Combat Team

Modular combat brigades will be self-contained combined arms formations. They will be standardized formations across the active and reserve components, meaning an armor brigade at Fort Hood will be the same as one at Fort Stewart. Before, different armored units had slightly different designs.

Reconnaissance plays a large role in the new organizational designs. The Army feels acquisition of the target was the weak link in the chain of finding, fixing, closing with, and destroying the enemy. They feel the Army has sufficient lethal platforms to take out the enemy. Thus, it increased the number of reconnaissance units in each brigade. The brigades also depend on joint fires from the Air Force and Navy to accomplish their mission. As a result, the amount of field artillery has been reduced in the brigade design.

The three types of combat brigades will be Heavy Brigade Combat Teams (HBCTs), Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs include light, air assault and airborne units), and Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs). The organization of brigades will change, with the armored cavalry regiment serving as a model in some ways:

 

[Damian]

I knew you will sphew your ignorant arrogance. But I expected you to have known this :

Transformation of the United States Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps you should read this before you show to start not only ignorance of yours, but also lack of any brain.

Because here I do not see anywhere written that US Army will replace it's tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with Strykers. Neither I see there resignation from armor-mechanized division.

It is written there:

Divisions and Brigades

1st Armored Division
Headquarters Fort Bliss, Texas
1st Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Fort Bliss
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Bliss (Army Evaluation Task Force)
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Bliss
4th Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Bliss
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Bliss

1st Cavalry Division
Headquarters Fort Hood, Texas
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
4th Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Hood
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Hood

1st Infantry Division
Headquarters Fort Riley, Kansas
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Riley
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Riley
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Knox, Kentucky
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Riley
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Riley

2nd Infantry Division
Headquarters Camp Red Cloud, South Korea
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Camp Casey, South Korea
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
4th Brigade Combat Team (Stryker BCT) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
Combat Aviation Brigade at Camp Humphreys, South Korea

3rd Infantry Division
Headquarters Fort Stewart, Georgia
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Stewart
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Stewart
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Benning, Georgia
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Stewart
Combat Aviation Brigade at Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia

4th Infantry Division
Headquarters Fort Carson, Colorado
1st Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Carson
2nd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Carson
3rd Brigade Combat Team (Armored BCT) at Fort Carson
4th Brigade Combat Team (Infantry BCT) at Fort Carson
Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson (Activating 2013)

15 ABCT's, and 4 SBCT's in these divisions + 2 SBCT's in 25th Infantry Division and 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments which are in fact SBCT's, so just as I wrote using overall US Army page, there are 15 ABCT's creating core of US Army active divisions and 8 SBCT's.

So there is nowhere said that there is more Strykers in US Army, or that Strykers are future of US Army. It is nothing more than your own imagination.

I should slap you in your face for being manipulator and lier.

And in fact, US Army wants to reorganize ABCT's to make them stronger formations by adding to them one more combined arms battalion, so instead of two, there will be three CAB's.

 

[Bhadra]

Armored Brigades, or ABCTs in the new design, will include around 3,700 soldiers. Since the brigade will have more organic units, the command structure will include a Deputy Commander (in lieu of the traditional Executive Officer) and a larger staff capable of working with civil-affairs, special operations, psychological operations, air defense, and aviation units. The brigade design will include:
Brigade Special Troops Battalion or BSTB (will include the brigade headquarters, signal company, military intelligence company with a TUAV platoon, security and military police platoons)
Armed reconnaissance squadron (equipped with three reconnaissance troops with 10 M3 Bradleys each)
(2) Combined-arms maneuver battalions (headquarters company including LRAS-equipped scout and M1064A3 120 mm mortar platoons and a sniper section, two tank companies with 14 M1 tanks each, two mechanized infantry companies with 14 M2 Bradleys each, and a mechanized engineer company)
Fires battalion (two 8-cannon Paladin batteries, a target acquisition platoon, and a joint fires cell)
Support battalion (medical, distribution, and maintenance companies, plus four forward-support companies to support the three maneuver elements and fires battalion)



There is No Place for Armour Divisions post Transformation in the US militray doctrine

 

[Bhadra]

Perhaps you should read this before you show to start not only ignorance of yours, but also lack of any brain.

Because here I do not see anywhere written that US Army will replace it's tanks and infantry fighting vehicles with Strykers.

Stryker Brigades or SBCTs will comprise 3,900 soldiers, making it the largest of the three combat brigades. It was designed prior to Gen. Schoomaker's arrival and thus, unlike the other brigades, it includes three—not two—maneuver battalions in addition to a reconnaissance squadron. Its design includes:
Headquarters Company
Reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition squadron (with three 14-vehicle, two-120 mm mortar reconnaissance troops plus a surveillance troop with UAVs and NBC detection capability)
(3) Stryker infantry battalions (each with three infantry companies with 12 infantry-carrying vehicles, 3 mobile gun platforms, 2 120 mm mortars, and around 100 infantry dismounts each, plus scout and medical platoons and a sniper section.)
Anti-tank company (9 TOW-equipped Stryker vehicles)
Fires battalion (three 6-gun 155 mm Howitzer batteries, target acquisition platoon, and a joint fires cell)
Engineer Company
Signal Company
Military Intelligence Company (with UAV platoon)
Support Battalion (medical, maintenance, and distribution companies)

 

[Daredevil]

Gentleman, I remind you to debate with civility, no need for name calling

 

[Damian]

Bhadra, when you learn to read with understanding back to this forum

And remember : US Army wants to reorganize ABCT's to make them stronger formations by adding to them one more combined arms battalion, so instead of two, there will be three CAB's.

 

[Damian]

Simple maths.

If ABCT is 3,700 soldiers, and we have 15 ABCT's in 6 armor-mechanized divisions, then 3,700 x 15 = 55,500 soldiers.
If SBCT is 3,900 soldiers, and we have 8 SBCT's with only 4 in armor-mechanized divisions, then 3,900 x 8 = 31,200 soldiers, and in armor-mechanized divisions we have only 15,600 soldiers in these 4 SBCT attached to armor-mechanized divsions.

So what is core of US Army? Strong ABCT or weak SBCT? Because there is no doubt that SBCT have lower firepower due to light armament of their vehicles, worser protection due to lightly armored vehicles it use, and good mobility only on roads, as we know wheels are not good in rought terrain and are not as universal as tracks are.

 

[Bhadra]

All speculations for armour... but there wont be any armour divisisosns in US Army in future so you are had..

 

[Damian]

All speculations for armour... but there wont be any armour divisisosns in US Army in future so you are had..

Technically there won't be any divisions at all, because US Army went from Divsional structure to Brigade structure, simple as that. But in reality there are divisions still. Not only there are still divisions, but in US Army concept, each BCT is a mini division of it's own.

There is 1st Armored Divsion, 1st Cavalry Division (which is also technically Armored Division) and 4 Infantry Divisions that are technically Armor-Mechanized Divisions.

And do not talk after transformations, because we are currently after transformations, and these divisions are still existing as HQ's for BCT's attached to them.

I am amazed that you have problems to understand even such simple things.

 

[militarysta]

@Bhadra
I suppose we have here som misunderstand - on west and in top NATO armies we havent "tank division" or "tank brigade" in fact all is based on "Kampffgruppe" idea when you cand "build" unit based on components - ex - tank batalion taken from one unit, artilery regiment taken from second, AA support for thir unit, etc.
In other sountries the structure is less fluent.

 

[Damian]

@Bhadra
I suppose we have here som misunderstand - on west and in top NATO armies we havent "tank division" or "tank brigade" in fact all is based on "Kampffgruppe" idea when you cand "build" unit based on components - ex - tank batalion taken from one unit, artilery regiment taken from second, AA support for thir unit, etc.
In other sountries the structure is less fluent.

This is why in US Army there were no pure armored divisions. Proper name for these divisions were Armor-Mechanized Divisions where you had tanks and mechanized infantry with it's armored vehicles closely cooperating with each other and based on balanced structure where there were no such things like more armor or more infantry, it was all balanced.

 

[Bhadra]

@Bhadra
I suppose we have here som misunderstand - on west and in top NATO armies we havent "tank division" or "tank brigade" in fact all is based on "Kampffgruppe" idea when you cand "build" unit based on components - ex - tank batalion taken from one unit, artilery regiment taken from second, AA support for thir unit, etc.
In other sountries the structure is less fluent.

Our misunderstanding in understanding is claer..

US Army is nothing but an expeditionary Army.. means it needs to deploy outside their country all over the world...

so they need rapid deployment forces where in heavy tanks really are a burdon...

so they are really searching for a formidable light tank which can be air lifted as also transported by ships in alrge numbers..

They are not any more conentrated on NATO battles of Western Europe where heavy tanks would win the battles for them..
They are not looking forward to fighting with national conventional armies but to fight with people like Libiyans rebels, sysrian rebel etc etc who would not have heavy tanks..

The US forces are looking forward to Regime control and Regime changes in the worls rather than fifghtin the Soviet Tank Divisiosns..

It is easiers to shift to heavy machines rather than to shift to light tanks..

Thank you.. for abusing me..

 

[Damian]

Our misunderstanding in understanding is claer..

US Army is nothing but an expeditionary Army.. means it needs to deploy outside their country all over the world...

so they need rapid deployment forces where in heavy tanks really are a burdon...

so they are really searching for a formidable light tank which can be air lifted as also transported by ships in alrge numbers..

They are not any more conentrated on NATO battles of Western Europe where heavy tanks would win the battles for them..
They are not looking forward to fighting with national conventional armies but to fight with people like Libiyans rebels, sysrian rebel etc etc who would not have heavy tanks..

The US forces are looking forward to Regime control and Regime changes in the worls rather than fifghtin the Soviet Tank Divisiosns..

It is easiers to shift to heavy machines rather than to shift to light tanks..

Thank you.. for abusing me..

US Army do not want to purchase any light tank.

US Army is financing only modernization of M1 tanks, M2 infantry fighting vehicles, M109 self prollepeled gun-howitzers, Strykers, as well as financing M2 replacement the GCV which will be 50+ tons class vehicle and M113 replacement the AMPV which will be 30+ tons class vehicle.

After 2020 US Army plans to start research and development of M1 tanks replacement and M109 replacement.

 

[collegeboy16]

US Army do not want to purchase any light tank.

US Army is financing only modernization of M1 tanks, M2 infantry fighting vehicles, M109 self prollepeled gun-howitzers, Strykers, as well as financing M2 replacement the GCV which will be 50+ tons class vehicle and M113 replacement the AMPV which will be 30+ tons class vehicle.

After 2020 US Army plans to start research and development of M1 tanks replacement and M109 replacement.

Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to focus on drones? Some of those r&d money IMHO should be diverted to greatly accelerate drone dev. I mean they are still risky tech on the battlefield but they fit the expeditionary force structure very well. You only need to set up logistics, no need to send thousands of guys in strykers, a few hundred would do and all in relatively cheaply developed heavy vehicles. Besides drones have much better windfall than heavy vehicles, things like better sensors, batteries, lighter alloys, AI, better comms. etc.

 

[asianobserve]

Drones are only good for containment. But if you want to topple regimes you still need boots on the ground.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

These are not cheap, Also they need more man power compare to an MBT / IFV / APC ..

Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to focus on drones? Some of those r&d money IMHO should be diverted to greatly accelerate drone dev.

 

[Damian]

And there is also one more thing. In air or on sea, drones might be easy to operate, now try the same on land and do not have a control center close to drones, but kilometers away.

Land drones have very serious problems with situational awareness and reaction time + of course navigation.

Everyone is now overhyped about drones because of these flying ones are used, but most of these people do not even know how dofficult is land combat, which is far more complex than air combat.

Also, who said that drones designed for direct land combat will be cheaper than conventional manned vehicles?

As for AI, AI is fantasy.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

US Army Developing New 120mm AMP Tank Round

The Army is developing a new Advanced Multi-Purpose 120mm tank round, known as AMP, that combines six different capabilities into a single round, service officials said.

The AMP is ready to enter into the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase after a prototype successfully demonstrated Technology Readiness Level 6 through a science and technology program at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., in 2006.

The new round will replace a rapidly aging inventory of tank munitions, said Col. Paul Laughlin, the 47th chief of Armor and commandant of the Armor School at the Maneuver Center of Excellence, Fort Benning, Ga.

"The new AMP round is long overdue," Laughlin said. "Tankers have struggled for years with a growing number of main gun rounds capable of defeating single types of threats; this resulted in a mix of ammunition types carried on board the tank that was always a problem.

"This is not just an issue of logistics," he said. "It creates both operational and survival issues. No one wants to get into a tank engagement and not have the right ammunition to defeat the range of threats that we will see on the future battlefield. The AMP round is a game changer that greatly increases our effectiveness. We need to make a very modest and affordable investment, spread over 30 years, to field a highly versatile and reliable round with the capabilities we need for the future fight."

The AMP round will replace four tank rounds now in use. The first two are the M830, High Explosive Anti Tank, or HEAT, round and the M830A1, Multi-Purpose Anti Tank, or MPAT, round. The latter round was introduced in 1993 to engage and defeat enemy helicopters, specifically the Russian Hind helicopter. The MPAT round has a two-position fuze, ground and air, that must be manually set.

The M1028 Canister round is the third tank round being replaced. The Canister round was first introduced in 2005 by the Army to engage and defeat dismounted Infantry, specifically to defeat close-in human-wave assaults.

The M908, Obstacle Reduction round, is the fourth that the AMP round will replace; it was designed to assist in destroying large obstacles positioned on roads by the enemy to block advancing mounted forces.

AMP also provides two additional capabilities: defeat of enemy dismounts, especially enemy anti-tank guided missile, or ATMG, teams at a distance, and breeching walls in support of dismounted Infantry operations.

"The AMP round is a significant advance in tank ammunition capability," said Lt. Col. Brian Gruchaz, product manager for large caliber munitions at Picatinny Arsenal. "It uses an ammunition data link and a multi-mode, programmable fuze to achieve multiple effects that currently can only be achieved by selecting, loading and firing one of four different 120mm tank rounds the AMP round will replace. Together with the two additional capabilities provided by the AMP round, a single AMP round can now achieve desired effects against ATGM teams, reinforced walls, bunkers, light armor, dismounts, and obstacles."

"To demonstrate these individual effects with a single round is the result of the efforts of the men and women at the Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. They demonstrated the AMP capability using two key technologies that are actually quite mature, an ammunition data link and a multi-mode programmable fuze. Using these technologies, commands to select the desired effect are transmitted via data link to the fuze on the round. The fuze setting determines whether the round will function with a point-detonate, point-detonate delay, or airburst effect," Gruchacz said.

"While not yet approved to proceed to the next developmental phase of the acquisition cycle, the Engineering Manufacturing and Development or EMD, phase, the AMP capability has been successfully tested and demonstrated," Gruchacz said.

Based on the AMP round's performance during development, many tankers and Army capabilities developers believe the AMP will also provide warfighters an improved Battle Carry capability.

Battle Carry is a term used by tank crews during combat when they are preparing to engage the enemy; they load the round they believe is the most likely needed to defeat the most likely threat target. If AMP were available to Army tankers, they'd be able to Battle Carry one round capable of achieving the desired effect across a wide range of targets.

Laughlin's final thoughts were "I have commanded tankers from platoon through regiment; I wish that each of my units would have had the capabilities that the AMP round provides. Now, as the chief of Armor, I can influence the system to give future tankers the ammunition they need to be more lethal, more survivable, and more effective."

By Kris Osborn and John D. Fuller

Source : Army Guide - US Army Developing New 120mm AMP Tank Round

 

[Broccoli]

Early Type-96G prototype with different turret. Does anyone know more about this?