# New CA Tank Destroyer (From: Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer)



## a_majoor

I rather like _this_ as a tank destroyer/DFSV


----------



## Matt_Fisher

The 'Secret Projects' forum has a good thread discussing a Leopard 3 'Casement Tank' concept that the Germans were looking at in the early 1980s which would likely have given the basis for the Corps 86 Chimera concept.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,820.0.html


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I rather like _this_ as a tank destroyer/DFSV



And they were operated by the artillery. They've taken the mortars away from the Infantry, why not steal some tanks from the Cavalry too? ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I rather like _this_ as a tank destroyer/DFSV



But can you fly them from ship to shore with a helicopter? >


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Having been in a Hetzer, the visibility when buttoned up was terrible. Generally the TC sat on his hatch to be able to see. Oddly enough it did have a RWS on top. That being said, it was a very successfully mod of an obsolete chassis and soldiered on postwar for quite some time.


----------



## larry Strong

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I rather like _this_ as a tank destroyer/DFSV



Bottom picture shows reenactors using a Swiss G-13.



Larry


----------



## a_majoor

A modernized Hetzer probably _could_ be slung under a helicopter, and certainly issues like visibility and crew ergonomics (the interior of a Hetzer fit the crew like a shirt) could also be addressed in a reboot.

It is small enough to slip down black tracks and show up in unexpected places, and allied tankers were quite wary once it was discovered these were in the area since they could be hidden away and camouflaged virtually anywhere (for scale, look at the pictures again and compare the size of the Hetzer or its Swiss counterpart to the people on and around it.)

Overall, if I was to make a choice between a monstrous "Chimera" and an SUV sized tank destroyer, I'd favour the smaller vehicle.


----------



## Danjanou

Well if we're looking at tiny able to sneak down trails AT vehicles why not resurrect this 







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP

The new version could be even be a eco friendly e-bike


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A modern day Hetzer would be more a assault gun than TD, the ATGM can handle that threat. Give it a 105mm howitzer, the Hetzer shape is still a good choice, modern track and drivetrain. A smallish RWS, because this vehicle would be working closely with airborne troops and providing them with enough punch and protection to take out strong points and provide some anti-IFV/APC protection.


----------



## Danjanou

Something along the lines of an upgunned Wiesel then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I considered it, but it's armour is less than the Hetzer, (8-60mm) useful though as a companion with mortars, command and perhaps with the autocannon as a anti-IFV vehicle. The modern hetzer would a pure assault gun. One could look at the Kanonenjagdpanzer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanzer_90_mm_Kanone, but at almost twice the weight and much bigger, may dilute any benefits. Any such vehicles means less troops, fuel, ammo being landed, so I suspect the Hetzer size would be the max without creating major logistical issues.

Modern casemated tanks/TD's have been debated heavily in other forums. If such a vehicle could be built to make use of a modern gun and fire control system at a much reduced cost for a small military which has a specific type of terrain to defend that would maximize the advantages these vehicles have as opposed to their disadvantages. 

Problem is that there are to many cheap tanks with decent guns on the market to make any design worth while. Now if you were for some reason stuck with M3 lights, Shermans, M41 or PT-76 hulls, then a TD style vehicle might be the answer.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's an interesting gun for the Hetzer 2:

The Oto-Melara 60mm HVMS.






http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3609.html

It is essentially a saboted 6 pdr Anti-Tank round fired from a necked-down 76mm cartridge.  IIRC the round had the same killing power as a 1980s vintage 105mm APDS.

It comes with an auto-loader mechanism (similar to the Oto-Melara 76mm shipboard system) and a total weight burden of 2200 kg.  The only problem was that there was/is no HE round in that caliber.


----------



## daftandbarmy

We bought the Carl - G and the Bofors... why not the S Tank?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The S tank was likely the last of a breed and a fine example of the class. I suspect the Finns/Germans and the Russians use of the TD's influenced them heavily. The terrain and channeling effect of Sweden favoured the use of the S-tank and it was to be used in support of the infantry, along with the http://www.haaland.info/armour/index.php/swedisharmour/swedishtanks/67-infanterikanonvagn91  

I would suspect there would be enough anti-armour weapons in a airborne unit to deal with most threats, which is why I think our modern Hetzers main role would have been dealing with strongpoints with a low M/V 105mm, which could still carry some HESH for anti-armour work.


----------



## Franko

S tank was a one off AFV that was designed for the country it was used in. It was not designed for anywhere else.

Then there were issues with the auto loader, the track suspension as well. Great idea, but when you're manipulating the suspension in order to get a point of aim on a target in soft ground....it tends to pop the track off.

Not good. Now they have a Leo2 fleet and have caught up to the rest of the world.

Regards


----------



## Kirkhill

Back to Danjanou's Wiesel - How about the TOW variant with the Bunker Buster Missile?

The weight is right for a CH-148/CH-149.  The tracks are right.  The on board ammo load out is very light but, given that these would not be ranging far from a fixed base with logistic support, probably manageable.  They are easier to dig-in than a LAV.  They could always have their power plant and suspension improved to accomodate additional field mounted armour.


----------



## McG

We just retired a tank destroyer because the capability was decided as not important enough.  LAV III TUA.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hey.  Mistakes happen.....  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

I see I kicked over a can of worms (again).

So question: where in the modern Canadian Army would a vehicle like the Hetzer II belong?

Just so you don't think I have an oar in the water, I personally would support arming the BV-206 or successor with an ATGM or recoiless cannon as an alternative to a purpose built SP, but I certainly would not say "no" if it was on offer.


----------



## Kat Stevens

MCG said:
			
		

> We just retired a tanks destroyer  a few years ago because the capability was decided as not important enough.  LAV III TUA.



Deja vu, far out, man.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Weisel TOW with bunkerbuster is a good way to bring some AT/HE to the mix, but the vehicle itself is quite vulnerable. The Hetzer II if following closely to it's predecessor would have armour 60mm frontal and 20mm side and well angled, that would basically make it frontally immune to 14.5 and 23mm. May be difficult to defeat frontally for older RPG's. so for bunker busting I will take the Hetzer with 105mm. The TOW Wiesel can provide AT overwatch for the troops. Not sure what the armour is on the BV-210 but the base weight is listed at 5 tons, slightly more than the Wiesel for a much bigger vehicle, so I suspect at best 7.62X54 frontal protection.

All of the above for light /airborne forces where weight,size, fuel and ammo load are all critical elements. For regular forces I would take a Leopard II or perhaps a engineering assault version armed with a 165mm demolition gun, bulldozer blade, RWS and extra armour.  :nod:


----------



## Dissident

Wiesel with C-16?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I see I kicked over a can of worms (again).
> 
> So question: where in the modern Canadian Army would a vehicle like the Hetzer II belong?
> 
> Just so you don't think I have an oar in the water, I personally would support arming the BV-206 or successor with an ATGM or recoiless cannon as an alternative to a purpose built SP, but I certainly would not say "no" if it was on offer.



Why, the Panzer Grenadier  Armoured Cavalry regiments, of course. They would be better than that cheesy, top heavy wheeled thing they dreamed up to go with the wheeled LAVs.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> We just retired a tank destroyer because the capability was decided as not important enough.  LAV III TUA.



Yes a mistake that again proven this spring on Ex PR/MR, LAV's are no match for a troop of any tanks that manage to sweep behind the FEBA, and take out the CCP :-/

But on another note, the LAV TUA though needed to augment the AT capabilities of a Inf Bn, are not a true TD, as they do not out range a Tanks 4km range.  The proposed(at one time) ADATS turret on a LAV chasis would fill the true role of a TD as they have a 10km range.  Far out reaching the Tanks ability to reach out and touch them, which is the while point of TD's not needing heavy armour protection.  They should never be in range of a tank round :-/


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Deja vu, far out, man.


Indeed.  A sign maybe that we are too quick to kill some capabilities.


... But a WWII style TD or stug or s-tank are not the way to go in the missile age when it comes time to revive the capability.


----------



## Franko

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes a mistake that again proven this spring on Ex PR/MR, LAV's are no match for a troop of any tanks that manage to sweep behind the FEBA, and take out the CCP :-/
> 
> But on another note, the LAV TUA though needed to augment the AT capabilities of a Inf Bn, are not a true TD, as they do not out range a Tanks 4km range.  The proposed(at one time) ADATS turret on a LAV chasis would fill the true role of a TD as they have a 10km range.  Far out reaching the Tanks ability to reach out and touch them, which is the while point of TD's not needing heavy armour protection.  They should never be in range of a tank round :-/



Sorry to burst your bubble, but tanks can indeed engage targets out past 10km. It's not done very often, but it can be done.

Besides, if we do our job correctly, ADATS wouldn't see a tank troop until its too late and too close.

Regards


----------



## daftandbarmy

This capability was available in the 80s:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehccGhnR94

Shouldn't we have it by now?

From the Comments:

1. The missile is﻿ the Swedish Bofors RBS-56 BOFORS BILL2 - the first 'top-attack' SACLOS ATGM in the world.

2. The date is around 1986 and the location is the BOFORS AB live-firing test range in Sweden - you can hear the Swedish WOC if you listen﻿ hard.

3. The target tank is a retired Centurion and is it radio-controlled.

4. It has doctored munitions to give an impressive result.

5. The clip can be seen on the video 'World Missiles and Missile Systems'.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst your bubble, but tanks can indeed engage targets out past 10km. It's not done very often, but it can be done.
> 
> Besides, if we do our job correctly, ADATS wouldn't see a tank troop until its too late and too close.
> 
> Regards



Theoretically yes, but not practical at all, using HE/HESH rounds and superelevating the gun like an artillery piece, it can be done.  Apparently the isreal's did this using M51 and Centurions using spotters with special long range optics, to do corrections, but this is a special case.  We both know the FC Computer in either the C2 or 2A4 can't range/direct fire past 4K/5K respectively.  And this is what our doctrine is based on.  

The longest confirmed "recent" case of long range tank engagement was in the first gulf war, with the Brits Challenger 1's hitting targets and just over 5K with HESH round fired from their smooth bore barrels, in desert terrain of course were you can see that far with the standard FCS of the tank.

As far as ADATS goes, yes I've seen tanks hide and maneuver very well, and you could likely hide from their optics....it's rather harder to hide from their RADAR though....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course in a conventional war, the ADATs would have to bug out as soon as it has lit up the area with it's radar and fired a couple of shots, otherwise it would quickly be on the receiving end of a MLRS strike.


----------



## Franko

I can tell you with some certainty that there were engagements between 4-5km in Afghanistan. I've heard of a few over that, but only rumour and not substantiated.

Regards


----------



## NavyShooter

I won't ask what we need this for, because it's always a good thing to be able to kill tanks....but the question of adding a separate platform/vehicle to gain this capability makes...well....not much sense to me.

I'll go back into my lane and stick with small arms and Navy stuff....

NS


----------



## Old EO Tech

Colin P said:
			
		

> Of course in a conventional war, the ADATs would have to bug out as soon as it has lit up the area with it's radar and fired a couple of shots, otherwise it would quickly be on the receiving end of a MLRS strike.



The old M113 TUA always had to move soon as well, all that smoke pin pointing their location :-/  On Ex MR we had an ADATS with the A2 and the "enemy" actually jammed the RADAR on part of the map, which of course lead to a recce of the area


----------



## George Wallace

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I won't ask what we need this for, because it's always a good thing to be able to kill tanks....but the question of adding a separate platform/vehicle to gain this capability makes...well....not much sense to me.
> 
> I'll go back into my lane and stick with small arms and Navy stuff....
> 
> NS



Well; I suppose it would be like designing all the ships in the Navy off one platform and then making your Aircraft Carriers, Landing Ship Tanks, Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, Patrol Vessels, Tenders, etc. modular and mixing and matching to fit the requirements.


----------



## a_majoor

Maybe we should ditch the Tank Destroyer designation and just focus on the idea of a compact fire support vehicle. In a perfect world, a Leopard 2A5 would show up in the nick of time and send the threat to the other world with a well placed APDSFS dart, but there are precious few Leopard 2 tanks in our inventory, Leopards have mobility restrictions based on size and weight, and there may be times *we* might have to take fire support in by air or sea (Kirkhill's suggestion about the airportability of a Hetzer like vehicle hints at that).

Now a high mobility vehicle like a BV 206/Viking/Bronco has the mobility to get in and out of all kinds of unexpected places, and can be slung under (or if properly prepared, carried inside) a helicopter like a Chinook. The large size allows it to carry extra ammunition and ancillary gear like electro/optical surveillance equipment or an APU which can enhance the ability to engage targets with a missile or a recoilless cannon. The downside is even a Bronco isn't that heavily protected, and once the enemy is aware of your presence (from the launch signature of the missile or the backblast of your recoilless weapon) they will be shooting back. Technical solutions like a "soft launch" missile with a reduced signature or a High/Low pressure recoilless cannon are possible, but have not been developed to the extent that we could engage with a Hellfire like missile or the equivlent to the 120mm WOMBAT recoilless cannon (anything less would just make an enemy tanker angry).

A small protected platform like the hypothetical Hetzer II allows the crew to close up and engage bunkers and field fortifications, fire at exposed enemy infantry with HE, cannister rounds or machine gun fire and if properly situated, ambush enemy AFV's and have a fighting chance of surviving enemy counterfire while escaping. Just as an aside, the newest ROK IFV (K-21) is evidently made of composite materials so has the protection of typical steel IFV's in a 25 ton package, so the Hetzer II could potentially make use of this technology to provide far more protection than might be expected. While a small, high velocity cannon would provide the means to deal with AFV's, it would have less effect on other targets, so a 105mm cannon or howitzer would provide the ability to take on a wider range of targets at the price of less performance against an AFV. A box launcher with Javelin fire and forget ATGMs on the roof could fix that.

So what do we have? A hypothetical vehicle to provide direct fire support in close terrain, potentially capable of being placed alongside light forces to give them more punch and to free up tanks for other roles. Is is doable? OF course; the technical issues are relatively simple, and we have more than a century of AFV experience to draw from. Can it be done? Maybe, if a need presents itself and the Army decides to put resources to the project. Will it be done? Not likely. (Even if I was Generalissimo of the Armed Forces I would preferentially put resources to bulking out the tank fleet and standardizing platforms. You would see an armed version of the Bronco, though)


----------



## McG

Thucydides,
Are you looking for a Hetzer 2013, or a Universal Carrier 2013 to support light forces and act as the platform for various heavy weapons (from HMGs & AGLs to heavy long range anti-armour missiles)?

When you talk about a Hetzer 2013, you are really talking about a vehicle to fit in along the mechanized force.  In that case, LAV Anti-Tank or even just missiles on platoon LAVs would achieve the desired capability while keeping to a manageable number of platform types.


----------



## Franko

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> We both know the FC Computer in either the C2 or 2A4 can't range/direct fire past 4K/5K respectively.  And this is what our doctrine is based on.



Lets just say I'm a SME on Armd doctrine, and the tools are there for any CC to engage further out, kept at the unit IG level. It's not hard, nor is it rocket science.

There are corrections and techniques available using onboard GLI  and using estimated technique then to allow for semi-indirect and are taught on the basic Leo gunner course, for both C2 and Leo2.

On the subject of ADATS, if it was the be all, end all platform for both air and anti-tank....why was it not adopted by every major NATO ally? Why did we drop it? I know every time (5 launches by three different CFRs) I saw an attempt to fire a missile, it didn't or would completely miss the intended target.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Think the only hits I saw where from the Direct Fire Team trials....... ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In some ways the Sheridan did try to fulfill the role we are giving to the Hetzer II. The problem of course was that the Sheridan was supposed to also do recce, AT work and be amphibious. It ended up being an OK infantry support vehicle in Vietnam, thanks mainly to the HE/cannister rounds for it's 152mm. The missile system was a bust in real life.

One option for the Hetzer II would be a redesigned 152mm gun, using ammo fitted with conventional cases instead of combustible and do away with the screw breech. 

Cases and breech can be seen here
http://

   

HE shells here


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> Thucydides,
> Are you looking for a Hetzer 2013, or a Universal Carrier 2013 to support light forces and act as the platform for various heavy weapons (from HMGs & AGLs to heavy long range anti-armour missiles)?
> 
> When you talk about a Hetzer 2013, you are really talking about a vehicle to fit in along the mechanized force.  In that case, LAV Anti-Tank or even just missiles on platoon LAVs would achieve the desired capability while keeping to a manageable number of platform types.



Hmmm. 

Wish list as Generalissimo would be a "standard" platform, so if we stick to a wheeled fleet for everything except tanks then some sort of LAV varient will do. There are plenty of "drop in" turrets on the market for gun armed versions (the BMP-3 turret was demonstrated on a similar Finnish 8X8 AFV, to give you some idea of what is possible). LAV SPAAGs, Engineer support vehicles, mortar carriers, logistics vehicles etc. all exist or have been demonstrated as well. The madness of multiple incompatible LAV platforms would end, however.

If we want to go for a tracked fleet, the CV-90 family has demonstrated most of the models our ideal army would like (instead of a "Hetzer 2013" we could get a light tank armed with a 120mm cannon: the CV90120)

For difficult terrain, a fleet of Broncos would do the job, once again serving as the basis of a fleet of varients for the various roles needed.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting point about the "Bren" Carrier.  That is kind of what I see every time I look at the Wiesel.

It doesn't really fit in with the LAVs and in fact is surplus to requirement for a LAV force.

But... >

What happens if instead of force that is 30% light, 60% medium and 10% heavy what happens if you turn the force around to 60% light, 30% medium and 10% heavy.  I suggest that the money saved in acquiring air portable support vehicles for the light forces could be invested in properly equipping the medium and heavy forces.  Also, with a little imagination in terms of cap badge allocation the light forces could rotate through the medium and heavy roles.

The light configuration would be equally valid for reserve troops fitted with Pickups, trailers, bobcats and quads.  


Our governments are not likely to be using LAVs and Tanks in Canada (or North America).  And they can't ship them overseas without long consultations and preparations.

A light force that can be heavied up over time makes for a much more useful configuration - although the Government may not actually want a useful force.  Then they might be called to use it.


Back to the point.


A Hetzer (or Stug) would be a useful addition to the 10% of the force that is Heavy.

The "Bren" carrier might make a useful addition to the 60% of the regular force that should be light.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... a redesigned 152mm gun, using ammo fitted with conventional cases instead of combustible and do away with the screw breech.


semi-combustible cases would probably be the way to go today.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> A Hetzer (or Stug) would be a useful addition to the 10% of the force that is Heavy.


I think a heavy force would be better suited with more tanks or missile systems than with WWII tank destroyers and assault guns.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Lets just say I'm a SME on Armd doctrine, and the tools are there for any CC to engage further out, kept at the unit IG level. It's not hard, nor is it rocket science.
> 
> There are corrections and techniques available using onboard GLI  and using estimated technique then to allow for semi-indirect and are taught on the basic Leo gunner course, for both C2 and Leo2.
> 
> On the subject of ADATS, if it was the be all, end all platform for both air and anti-tank....why was it not adopted by every major NATO ally? Why did we drop it? I know every time (5 launches by three different CFRs) I saw an attempt to fire a missile, it didn't or would completely miss the intended target.



And I'm and EO/FCS  Tech with 8 years fixing tanks at the strats and 6 years teaching LeoC1/C2 Maint at the school....since we exchanging resumes :-/

And while the tools are there and taught doesn't mean they are effective.  The Cougar had a QFC as well, that was never used as anything but a foot step :-/  Never in my 8 years with the strats did I ever see rounds wasted practicing semi-indirect/indirect fire on a gun camp.  It is fundamentally better to let the artillery handle indirect Fire missions, and let the tanks destroy the enemy with firepower and violence :/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Hetzer II would be a dedicated vehicle for airborne troops, worrying about weight and size is nowhere near as important for regular deployments. Specializing vehicles for the airborne assault role is worthwhile and may need to have a number of different vehicles to draw upon depending on the operations. Of course this is all pie in the sky and we can also pretend that we have the aircraft to support such. I don't see a need in such an operation for more than 4-6 assault guns, a battery of mobile mortars and perhaps 4-6 autocannon armed vehicles. Throw in 6 CP's, supply vehicles, you are still looking at roughly 12 lifts of a C130J or C-17 just for the vehicles and assorted bits. Not sure how many lifts are required to drop a battalion of Paratroops.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Hetzer II would be a dedicated vehicle for airborne troops, worrying about weight and size is nowhere near as important for regular deployments. Specializing vehicles for the airborne assault role is worthwhile and may need to have a number of different vehicles to draw upon depending on the operations. Of course this is all pie in the sky and we can also pretend that we have the aircraft to support such. I don't see a need in such an operation for more than 4-6 assault guns, a battery of mobile mortars and perhaps 4-6 autocannon armed vehicles. Throw in 6 CP's, supply vehicles, you are still looking at roughly 12 lifts of a C130J or C-17 just for the vehicles and assorted bits. Not sure how many lifts are required to drop a battalion of Paratroops.



'They' have been working for years to design a suitable air portable/ airborne tank e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M56_Scorpion

I recall that one of the problems during Gulf War 1 was that it took a ridiculously long period of time to transport M1s due to their size and weight. I think 1 x C5 can only move 1 x M1. One option, of course, is to have agreements with countries (or invade and occupy them  ;D) near the usual trouble spots and keep your heavy armour there. There are obvious political and 'blood and treasure' disadvantages to that option though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> And I'm and EO/FCS  Tech with 8 years fixing tanks at the strats and 6 years teaching LeoC1/C2 Maint at the school....since we exchanging resumes :-/
> 
> And while the tools are there and taught doesn't mean they are effective.  The Cougar had a QFC as well, that was never used as anything but a foot step :-/  Never in my 8 years with the strats did I ever see rounds wasted practicing semi-indirect/indirect fire on a gun camp.  It is fundamentally better to let the artillery handle indirect Fire missions, and let the tanks destroy the enemy with firepower and violence :/



Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.

I don't need a resume. 8)


----------



## a_majoor

Well, we already have the BV 206 and C-17's (and C-130's), so emptying out the rear half and fitting a pedestal for a DF weapon or a baseplate for a mortar (using the formula upthread then go 6-6-6 with 4 being gun, missile or mortar armed vehicles and 2 each for the HQ/CQ roles) provides the air mobility, platforms and firepower, although sacrificing the protection. (relpacing the BV-206 with the Bronco boosts the protection a bit).

Since the BV 206 or Bronco can be slung under a Chinook, operational and tactical air mobility is possible as well.

Very few changes actually have to be made to our current force structure and holdings to do this (dust off the TOW launchers and bring the 81mm Mortars back from the artillery for heavy DF and IF tasks, and use .50 HMG's or C-16's as the light DF gun).

This is actually doable (for a change)


----------



## Old EO Tech

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.
> 
> I don't need a resume. 8)



I should have specified I was more talking about tank ranges, but then isn't every fire mission with a Cougar "indirect fire" with it's low velocity 76?    Even when the sights are used  ;D

I think the last Cougar range I was on was a firepower demo in 97 in Bosnia....when Cougar's were declared DFV's and operationally sent to the Balkans....which is another topic  :nod:


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I should have specified I was more talking about tank ranges, but then isn't every fire mission with a Cougar "indirect fire" with it's low velocity 76?    Even when the sights are used  ;D
> 
> I think the last Cougar range I was on was a firepower demo in 97 in Bosnia....when Cougar's were declared DFV's and operationally sent to the Balkans....which is another topic  :nod:



You experiences may vastly differ from others.  We used the Gun Clinometers on ranges in Germany when firing the Leopard 1 C1.  Was it done often?  No.  Was it done at the School in Gagetown?  Yes.  It is a backup tool in the box, that is used very infrequently.  Just because your experience did not see it, does not mean that it was never done.


----------



## Franko

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ummm, we practiced semi indirect with the Cougar at every gun camp. Nor was it wasted. The targets were almost always successfully engaged, within the rounds allowed by the firing tables.
> 
> I don't need a resume. 8)



Agreed RG.

Semi indirect was practiced on Leo C1 and C2 here in Gagetown on a regular basis. Advanced Gunnery did indirect every course until recently. Cougar gunnery was the same. 

EO Tech - You obviously weren't in Ft Bliss when we did semi-indirect shoots in 2008. I'd say the 500+ rounds of SH and HESH that were fired were far from wasted. 

Just because you know to fix them, doesn't mean you know tank doctrine. Saying that the QFC was nothing more than a footstep speaks volumes. 

Regards


----------



## Old EO Tech

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Agreed RG.
> 
> Semi indirect was practiced on Leo C1 and C2 here in Gagetown on a regular basis. Advanced Gunnery did indirect every course until recently. Cougar gunnery was the same.
> 
> EO Tech - You obviously weren't in Ft Bliss when we did semi-indirect shoots in 2008. I'd say the 500+ rounds of SH and HESH that were fired were far from wasted.
> 
> Just because you know to fix them, doesn't mean you know tank doctrine. Saying that the QFC was nothing more than a footstep speaks volumes.
> 
> Regards



No I would have been in Afghanistan then enjoying the sun in FOB Frontenac :-/  But no in my time with the Strats I never saw that done.  I never said it was not taught, nor did I say I was an expert in tank doctrine, but I am an expert at the capabilities of the equipment in a tank.  And I can say for a fact that tanks are not designed to be an accurate indirect fire instrument.  And I use the term "accurate"  in reference to what is an accurate system, the Artillery howitzer.  I could dig up all the specs on all the indirect FCS we are discussing.  But I think that would be redundant, and we can just agree to disagree  :-\


----------



## Fishbone Jones

..........because that's easier than trying to pretend three old tankers don't know their gunnery


----------



## Old EO Tech

recceguy said:
			
		

> ..........because that's easier than trying to pretend three old tankers don't know their gunnery



Also something I was not implying


----------



## a_majoor

Before this devolves into a bunfight, we are speaking about hypothetical future capabilities here.

For accurate long range and semi indirect tank shooting, there are currently through tube missiles like LAHAT and various Russian offerings for their 125mm canons. The Korean Army has a guided top attack round for their K2 tank:



> The KSTAM (Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition) is a fire-and-forget, top-attack anti-tank munition with an effective operating range of 2–8 km, developed specifically for use with the K2. It is launched as a kinetic energy projectile, fired from the main gun in a high trajectory profile comparable to that of a mortar. Upon reaching its designated target area, a parachute deploys, giving onboard millimeter band radar, IR and radiometer sensors time to seek and acquire stationary or moving targets. When a target is acquired, an explosively formed penetrator is fired from a top-down position, to exploit the weaker top armor of tanks. Target acquisition can also be directed manually by the tank crew via a remote-link. These characteristics allow the launch vehicle to remain concealed behind cover while firing successive rounds towards the known location of an enemy, or provide effective indirect fire support against targets hidden behind obstacles and structures.



And the US Army spent a lot of time and energy pioneering these techniques (Through Tube Missiles were invented in the 1960's for the Sheriden and M60A2 tanks, and TERM [Tank Extended Range Munition] was developed through the 1980's), although never widely adopted. There is a possibility of the US either redeveloping these sorts of rounds for themselves, or purchasing them from allies like Israel or Korea.

These sorts of munitions will become more common and cheaper as time progresses, and I can see Tanks or AFV's carrying rounds of this type in the future to provide more options for the crew commander and the combat team commander (with some sort of battlefield networking there is the possibility of getting every tank into the fight even if they cannot see the targets with their own sights usig these sorts of rounds).

For a hypothetical Hetzer II with a 105mm howitzer, the primary emphasis will be on HE or HESH to destroy hardened targets like bunkers and light AFV's, but a few smart rounds could add another arrow to the quivver if needed. A "Universal" platform might not have a cannon, but STRIX 120mm mortar rounds or top attack missiles like the TOW 2, Bofers BILL, SPIKE or Javelin ATGM (among others) provide accurate IF capability vs hard targets, and in the case of a mortar, the 120mm warhead will do a lot of damage to other targets as well. If the "Universal" platform includes a light tank (like the CV90120), then smart rounds increase the utility and survivability of these vehicles.

So long range indirect fire capabilities not only exist now, but can be markedly enhanced with smart ammunition.


----------



## Ostrozac

Creating a weapon that can kill things at long range has never been a problem. The choke point lately has been finding the target. The Russian 10km range tank launched weapons are radio guided, which means they are limited by line of sight, and for practical purposes didn't really outrange TOW 2 -- because it was hard enough to find 4km of line of sight on any normal battlefield.

The world isn't a pool table, and your enemies will try to hide. We have always said that time spent in recce is seldom wasted, but that extends to the fact that resources spent in ISTAR are seldom wasted. If you can't find the enemy, then all the long range weapons in the world are useless to you. Discussions about future weapons have to include discussions about future sensors. And in my experience, developing long range sensors seems to be often overlooked. The JUSTAS program has been ongoing for 13 years, but still hasn't delivered a UAV or a sensor.


----------



## Franko

Also, with the missile system for the T72/ 80, once the gun tube has been rigged to fire the missile, it can't fire a normal round immediately after. Kinda defeating the purpose.


----------



## a_majoor

LAHAT is laser guided, and can be used to its 13 km range with a forward observer painting the target (another tank, an infantry or artillery observer or even a helicopter scout).

The Korean smart round has multiple sensors on board, as well as a data link to the crew who can manually engage a NLOS target. TERM, as envisioned in the 1980's, was also a fire and forget top attack round but (AFAIK) without the manual link.

Spike is a FOG-M weapon, which transmits real time video to the operator through the fiber optic link and can be flown directly into the target. Other FOG-M missiles are in development.

And of course there are dozens of UAVs of all sizes and shapes that can be deployed over the battelfield to provide extra "eyes on", and I have also seen rounds as small as 40mm grenades that carry cameras and allow the local commander to pop an eye in the sky to take a look.

I suspect war in the future will resemble a deadly game of "hide and seek" where exposing yourself will likely draw fire and tactics may split between long range "fishing expeditions" and short range ambushes with high volumes of fire.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Gun-armed tank destroyers were a way to get a bigger gun and more armour on a chassis than would be possible if the vehicle had a turret. They were also a little easier to manufacture without a turret. They made sense for Germany in World War 2, but I don't think that they have a role today. Missile-armed vehicles can provide anti-tank capability.

I do believe that the Canadian Army does have a serious gap with respect to anti-tank capability. While the Leopards are great at killing tanks, if they are the only systems that can do that then they will get penny-packeted across a battle group. I have seen this on several virtual and real exercises over the past four years.  On a Capability Development Experiment that I participated in, for example, this led to the defeat in detail of a combat team as our tanks were spread out to protect infantry companies while the numerically equal enemy tanks were concentrated (France 1940).

It is a shame that we divested the LAV TUA. Calling on coalition resources can work for certain things (attack helos, CAS etc), but an infantry battalion needs dedicated anti-tank assets if it is going to relevant on a modern conventional battlefield.

If we don't think that we will ever face tanks (or even the threat of tanks in the hands of a local militia or an armoured threat across a border) then why have our exercises been so focused on "near peer" adversaries?


----------



## vonGarvin

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> It is a shame that we divested the LAV TUA. Calling on coalition resources can work for certain things (attack helos, CAS etc), but an infantry battalion needs dedicated anti-tank assets if it is going to relevant on a modern conventional battlefield.


Not just the TUA, but the hand-held AT weapons as well.  The 84mm and 66mm stuff we have now just doesn't cut the mustard.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I know, why don't we form a special group in each infantry unit and we can call them the "Heavy weapons Platoon" or the "Anti-tank platoon" We can use all the cool power point words to describe them; "force multiplier, user centric, dynamic and responsive" to name a few.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I know, why don't we form a special group in each infantry unit and we can call them the "Heavy weapons Platoon" or the "Anti-tank platoon" We can use all the cool power point words to describe them; "force multiplier, user centric, dynamic and responsive" to name a few.



That idea is so good you should do it twice and create BOTH a Heavy Weapons (MG) Platoon and an Anti-Tank Platoon.  And in their spare time they can be common or garden riflemen.


----------



## Danjanou

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That idea is so good you should do it twice and create BOTH a Heavy Weapons (MG) Platoon and an Anti-Tank Platoon.  And in their spare time they can be common or garden riflemen.



We could even then put them in their own company and maybe add other platoons as the mood hits like oh I don'tt know say  out of left field another heavy weapon platoon using some sort of indirect weapons system either off the shelf or still to be developed .  Somewhere in Ottawa an under employed Senior Officer is salivating at the chance to get "leading change" base on this. :


----------



## a_majoor

Danjanou said:
			
		

> We could even then put them in their own company and maybe add other platoons as the mood hits like oh I don'tt know say  out of left field another heavy weapon platoon using some sort of indirect weapons system either off the shelf or still to be developed .  Somewhere in Ottawa an under employed Senior Officer is salivating at the chance to get "leading change" base on this. :



And all these weapons platoons and the rest of the battalion might need help setting up defensive positions, mobility enhancement or local mobility denial....maybe some big guys with axes and other pioneer tools can be enlisted to do the job.

Just saying  >


----------



## MilEME09

Honestly I think the CF has a bigger gap in our air defense but thats a bigger debate. As its stands of heard rumours or a replacement for the Eryx, though god only know when that would happen now. The Carl G is a good weapon, and could do great against modern armour if we upgraded its munitions, if we could get a APDS round for the Carl G, i doubt much could stop it. Problem with the Carl G is the fact that its un guided. Which on the flip side means it can't be jammed bbut relies more on the user to have good aim of the weapon. Now the M72 is completely outdated and is in need of serious upgrade or replacement in my opinion. against modern vehicles it is ineffective and probably couldn't even penetrate a LAV III that has been up armoured. I know its cheap but its not effective when i keep hearing from our officers we are going back to Green ops a la force on force traditional warfare. If thats the case dismounted infantry need the tools to take on armour, for example the AT4-HP is designed to penetrate up to 600mm of RHA against MBT's while that wouldnt scratch say the front armour of a T-90, you can bet we could score a side or rear armour kill with that kind of penetration power.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

RR will never do APDS as they don't have the velocity, however stuff like (FFV751 is a tandem-warhead HEAT round with an effective range of 500 m and ability to penetrate more than 500 mm of armour. Weight is 4 kg, From wiki) would make it effective.

I do agree that the lack of a sound AD plan will eventually bite us at some point.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And all these weapons platoons and the rest of the battalion might need help setting up defensive positions, mobility enhancement or local mobility denial....maybe some big guys with axes and other pioneer tools can be enlisted to do the job.
> 
> Just saying  >



And just maybe they could operate within an infantry self-managed protective dome of indirect fire provided by some simple, effective smooth bore technology that would be man portable.


----------



## Kirkhill

D&B - Check out Danjanou's post.  The one just before Thuc's.  You and he seem to have been visited by the same good idea fairy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> D&B - Check out Danjanou's post.  The one just before Thuc's.  You and he seem to have been visited by the same good idea fairy.



Cool. Can you do 'punch bug' on the internet?  ;D


----------

