# Corps 86's Chimera tank destroyer



## MadMat

Hi,

  Reading the Corps 86 program, I came accross the "Chimera" tank destroyer concept.

  I made some research, but the only visual I could find was that one, taken from a model:






  Do you know if there are any drawing or sketch from the author of the concept, about what it would have looked like, and if this model is accurate? Although, besides the fact that it was armed with a 120mm gun, are there any known specifications about it?

Thanks.


----------



## George Wallace

MadMat said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Reading the Corps 86 program, I came accross the "Chimera" tank destroyer concept.
> 
> I made some research, but the only visual I could find was that one, taken from a model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if there are any drawing or sketch from the author of the concept, about what it would have looked like, and if this model is accurate? Although, besides the fact that it was armed with a 120mm gun, are there any known specifications about it?
> 
> Thanks.



I think you will find that this is something out of the realm of WoT.


----------



## MadMat

Yes, I know ...  ;D

Was just wondering what such a concept, if turned into reality, could have achieve?


----------



## MadMat

I just found that other picture, from what is labeled as a "JagdChieftain".
Seems like the British have had the same ideas ...


----------



## OldTanker

I wrote some of the Tank Destroyer doctrine and developed the org chart for the TD Regiment as part of the Corps 86 study (not that I remember much about it - it was all pretty airy-fairy, even at the time). I don't think we had a specific example of the TD we were basing our study on (maybe something like JagdPanzer Kanone but with a 105mm cannon?), but as I recall the conceptual drawings we used were pretty close to the model you reference.


----------



## George Wallace

OldTanker said:
			
		

> I wrote some of the Tank Destroyer doctrine and developed the org chart for the TD Regiment as part of the Corps 86 study (not that I remember much about it - it was all pretty airy-fairy, even at the time). I don't think we had a specific example of the TD we were basing our study on (maybe something like JagdPanzer Kanone but with a 105mm cannon?), but as I recall the conceptual drawings we used were pretty close to the model you reference.



Sifting through the aluminum clogged memories, was not the Swedish S Tank a consideration?


----------



## a_majoor

I only recall reading about the Chimera Tank Destroyer once or twice (I think there was a fictional Corps 86 piece along the lines of "First Clash"), and even then it was only a passing reference.

The Chimera was overtaken by events even then; a Leopard 2 with a 120mm cannon on a turret is far more useful and flexible and was in German service in 1979.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had they had a 140mm gun available, then it might have been a useful tool, not to mention a growing Warsaw pact threat and a need for more AD defenses that could function in a NBC environment .


----------



## McG

I only ever heard of Chimera from an RCR officer whose initial regimental tour was when they had a Bn in Winnipeg.  He described it as an impossible vehicle named for an impossible animal.  He brought it up in a conversation about MMEV to argue that Canada had a well established history of developing conceptual tank killing vehicles with fantastical, unattainable promised capabilities.  I don't recal specifically why he did not believe Chimera could be built … something relating to overly optimistic lethality.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually the basic idea is easy, put a large gun (120mm in this case) into an obsolete chassis to supplement our then new Leopard 1's. It's not like such things have not been done before. However where the troops to man them or the funding was going to come from is another very real issue. Considering the scare that led to the Conqueror and M103, the idea had merit and likely within our technical ability.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> I only ever heard of Chimera from an RCR officer whose initial regimental tour was when they had a Bn in Winnipeg.  He described it as an impossible vehicle named for an impossible animal.  He brought it up in a conversation about MMEV to argue that Canada had a well established history of developing conceptual tank killing vehicles with fantastical, unattainable promised capabilities.  I don't recal specifically why he did not believe Chimera could be built … something relating to overly optimistic lethality.



I actually saw the MMEV concept vehicle fire in Suffield back in 06... the first time it was fired the LAV tipped over and the missile flew about 500 metres and thundered in.  The engineers did another trial the next day and they got it to fire accurately and not tip over (Than high fived each other like teenage boys that just found out one got to third base...).  The point is that the MMEV concept worked, but was waaaaayyyyy too expensive for Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

If I remember rightly that Chimera looks an awful lot like some illustrations I saw in a Kenneth Macksey book of the Corps 86 vintage.  It was called "Tank vs Tank".  He's also known for "First Clash" - 4CMBG's 3 days of WW3.


----------



## MadMat

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> If I remember rightly that Chimera looks an awful lot like some illustrations I saw in a Kenneth Macksey book of the Corps 86 vintage.  It was called "Tank vs Tank".  He's also known for "First Clash" - 4CMBG's 3 days of WW3.


I have read "_First Clash_", but I didn't know about the other.
I'll have to find it ...


----------



## vonGarvin

First Clash was based firmly in reality of 1984 4 CMBG.  Or so.  He did write another novel, "Counterstroke" or something along those lines.  It had farcical units in farcical vehicles, such as the Chimera TD.

Edit to add:
I posted something about Macksey's books here:


----------



## a_majoor

Don't forget the "next generation training tool" Crisis in Zefra, and the alleged sequel:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/84020.0


----------



## Old EO Tech

Technoviking said:
			
		

> First Clash was based firmly in reality of 1984 4 CMBG.  Or so.  He did write another novel, "Counterstroke" or something along those lines.  It had farcical units in farcical vehicles, such as the Chimera TD.
> 
> Edit to add:
> I posted something about Macksey's books here:



OMG I read First Clash ages ago and had forgotten the name of it :-/


----------



## Danjanou

You made me get out of my seat and wade over to the bookcase. Counterstroke a sort of "sequel"  to First Clash also by K Macksay. This hypotetical TD is in there along all sorts of never was vehicles, weapons and ORBATs. No where as good a read as First clash IMHO.


----------



## a_majoor

MadMat said:
			
		

> Yes, I know ...  ;D
> 
> Was just wondering what such a concept, if turned into reality, could have achieve?



Took another look at the model, and can only say I hope it was _not_ accurate. There is no gun mantlet that I can see, and the barrel protrudes from a deep cleft in the superstructure, which would make an outstanding shot trap for incoming rounds. Not too clear on the internal arrangements, but there do not seem to be a lot of optical equiment to allow the CC to see and engage targets from long distances (presumably why you would need a 120mm cannon on a Tank Destroyer). Given the gun is fixed, there should be lots of episcopes as well to provide situational awareness when hatches down. I rather doubt there is a rear facing crew position (the S Tank radio operator/getaway driver sits back to back with another crewman to cover the rear visually and to take control and drive the vehicle when driving in reverse).

Like I said upthread, this idea was already overtaken by events when Corps 86 was being formulated; the Leopard 2 was in German Army service in 1979 with a 120mm cannon on a fully rotating turret, providing a much more flexible fighting platform. Too bad we didn't get oour Leopard 2 fleet until much later.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

MadMat said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Reading the Corps 86 program, I came accross the "Chimera" tank destroyer concept.
> 
> I made some research, but the only visual I could find was that one, taken from a model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if there are any drawing or sketch from the author of the concept, about what it would have looked like, and if this model is accurate? Although, besides the fact that it was armed with a 120mm gun, are there any known specifications about it?
> 
> Thanks.



Shhhhhhhhh  


Speak of the devil

"Speak of the devil" is the short form of the idiom "Speak of the devil and he doth appear" (or its alternative form "speak of the devil and he shall appear."). It is used when an object of discussion unexpectedly becomes present during the conversation. It can also be used about a topic that quickly becomes relevant, such as the onset of rain or a car breaking down. Used in this sense it can be seen as an alternative to the phrase "tempting fate".

Deriving from the Middle Ages, this proverb (which was, and to a certain extent still is, rendered as "Talk of the Devil...") was a superstitious prohibition against speaking directly of the Devil or of evil in general, which was considered to incite that party to appear, generally with unfortunate consequences. Its first printed usage in modern English can be found in Giovanni Torriano's Piazza Universale (1666), as "The English say, Talk of the Devil, and he's presently at your elbow."

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


----------



## BlackDynomite

MadMat said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> Reading the Corps 86 program, I came accross the "Chimera" tank destroyer concept.
> 
> I made some research, but the only visual I could find was that one, taken from a model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know if there are any drawing or sketch from the author of the concept, about what it would have looked like, and if this model is accurate? Although, besides the fact that it was armed with a 120mm gun, are there any known specifications about it?
> 
> Thanks.



Wow, can't wait to see this modeled and implemented in WALB! Canada has always needed some TD's


----------



## pbi

When I did CACSC in 1990, we used the Corps 86 ORBAT, including the Chimera. We all understood that it was not a real vehicle (and not even a fully developed concept), but just a placeholder or "icon" to represent a capability for us to plan with.

At the time, we thought of the Leo Jagdpanzer _Kanone_ as the model for the Chimera. I don't think any of us seriously believed that it would ever actually enter service. Like the rest of Corps 86, it was really there to stimulate thinking about capabilities, while serving in a tiny little Army. The hope was to avoid the system shock that would happen if we ever had to fight another Big One: officers would actually have already wrapped their minds around the huge challenges that sudden expansion to large scale operations brings to any Army.

Cheers


----------



## ohslowpoke

I know this is a serious necro-post but I am curious if there is anyone attached to this still about these parts.
I am trying to gather some more information on both Corp 86, and, more accurately, the Chimera. Drawings, sketches or information.


----------



## vonGarvin

ohslowpoke said:
			
		

> I know this is a serious necro-post but I am curious if there is anyone attached to this still about these parts.
> I am trying to gather some more information on both Corp 86, and, more accurately, the Chimera. Drawings, sketches or information.


----------



## ohslowpoke

I've got better.

http://i.imgur.com/ftWFTeJ.jpg

 I've also got a couple of original documents related to it that I am, unfortunately, unable to share. But I'm looking to complete my collection, so to speak.


----------



## Kirkhill

Technoviking said:
			
		

>



Also describable as an armoured, self-propelled field gun.


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Also describable as an armoured, self-propelled field gun.



I beg to differ. If you look at the example of the German StuG field guns, they generally mounted short, low velocity guns to launch HE shells at enemy strong points, while the JgPz's mounted high velocity cannons to deal with enemy tanks.

With the evolution of modern cannon this distinction is somewhat mooted (the Stryker MGS is considered a fire support vehicle and explicitly used to attack enemy strongpoints, despite having a 105mm high velocity tank cannon), but at the time and place the Chimera was conceptualized, and its presumptive role in Corps 86, it is most assuredly a tank destroyer. I also doubt that any "real world" examples of such a beast would be able to carry sufficient 120mm HE or dual purpose ammunition (in addition to its APDSFS rounds) to make it worth while to even throw into the fray as an infantry fire support vehicle.

OTOH, if anyone had been crazy enough to build these back in the 1980's, we would now have a lot of hulls that could usefully be transformed into engineer vehicles of various sorts.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... I also doubt that any "real world" examples of such a beast would be able to carry sufficient 120mm HE or dual purpose ammunition (in addition to its APDSFS rounds) to make it worth while to even throw into the fray as an infantry fire support vehicle.
> ...



13 pdr QF field gun 24 rounds per gun in semi-detached limber
18 pdr QF field gun 24 rounds per gun in semi-detached limber
25 pdr QF gun/howitzer 32 rounds per gun in semi-detached limber

Jagdpanzer IV 79 rounds per gun 
Sturmgeschutz 54 rounds per gun 
Stridsvagn 103 50 rounds per gun 

Leo 2 - 15 ready rounds per gun + 27 stowed

Stryker MGS - 18 rounds per gun

The early QF were most assuredly intended to be used in DFS role (hence the bullet screens) because they were expected to be used on line with the infantry battalions - as employed during the Boer War and in 1914 (before settling down to trench warfare and being withdrawn behind the forward lines).

Even a couple of tubes with a couple of dozen mixed rounds each would make a useful addition to a battalion in Adaptive Dispersed Operations I am thinking.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This was the same time that Sweden had the S-tank and I think Kannon-Panzer was still gun equipped or just going to HOT-ATGM's. Plus we just gotten the Leopards and I think the realization was that armour wise they could not stand up very well vs Warsaw Pact and already the L7 was becoming stretched to deal with new Soviet threats.


----------



## OldTanker

Again, having written some of the TD doctrine, my memory is that we weren't looking at any specific vehicles (all we had were conceptual drawings of what Chimera COULD look like) but more focused on adding the idea of TD into our doctrine. Corps 86 as those involved in developing it will recall was huge and we had a bit of everything. Considering we were still fighting the battle to replace Leo C1s, this was real fantasy stuff and usually resulted in a slow head-shake from the Armour community. But it was a good way to burn off excess staff planning time and resources  : since apparently we had nothing else to do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Do you recall if you used another countries doctrine as a guide? Basically you had the British (Conqueror), Swedish or German either wartime or postwar to go on. Can't think of any other postwar non-Warsaw Pact countries that employed gun TD's other than the Japanese twin RR light TD


----------



## KerryBlue

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Also describable as an armoured, self-propelled field gun.



Looks like a modern Stug IV to me, I really like the look of this.


----------



## OldTanker

If anything we were looking at the German model of using TDs. Again, this was all pretty off-the-wall stuff.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

thanks, i can imagine it's all pretty hazy now.  [


----------



## Blackadder1916

From Sean Maloney (who is usually well researched), this brief mention of the "Chimera" in his draft Chapter 18 (unpublished - that ended up on the editor's floor) for a history of the RCAC.



> Another interesting concept which emerged in the Corps 86 process was the planned
> Chimera tank destroyer unit. The role of the Germany-based brigade was, simply put, to
> destroy as much enemy armour as possible should war occur. The tank-TOW team was
> considered effective, but some Canadian armour officers on course at Bovington in the
> UK determined that an anti-tank vehicle with a kinetic energy penetrator would be a
> useful supplement. Division planners agreed. Preliminary studies projected an Challenger
> or Leopard II MBT hull with a fixed 120 mm gun and the latest fire control system. As
> with TOW Under Armour, the Chimera would operate alongside the infantry and be used
> to free up tanks and thus bring more flexibility to the use of armour in the brigade group.
> Corps 86 structures saw a divisional anti-tank battalion made up of three squadrons of 16
> Chimeras each. Chimera was eventually overshadowed by events and inter-arm politics
> and never built.



There is also a mention of the Chimera (with a photo of the plastic model) in "Counterstroke" B-GL-309-007/FT-001.


----------



## Old Sweat

As I recall Corps 86 started in the mid-seventies as a project to resurrect the Canadian Army combat development (CD) process. For what seemed like a lot of good reasons at the time the army leadership did not place any constraints on or provide any guidance to the various teams formed to produce the various branches' input into a divisional structure. There also was no underlying concept of operations other than to be part of the defence of Western Europe.

The result was a huge organization that had no chance of ever being authorized. It was used as the order of battle at CLFCSC, but the deputy commandant of the college remarked to me that it was too big and cumbersome and the students were never challenged in trying to make do with too many tasks and not enough "stuff."

There were some positives, including developing staff methodology for CD, so it was not a complete waste of time and (lots of) money.


----------



## ohslowpoke

OldTanker said:
			
		

> Again, having written some of the TD doctrine, my memory is that we weren't looking at any specific vehicles (all we had were conceptual drawings of what Chimera COULD look like) but more focused on adding the idea of TD into our doctrine. Corps 86 as those involved in developing it will recall was huge and we had a bit of everything. Considering we were still fighting the battle to replace Leo C1s, this was real fantasy stuff and usually resulted in a slow head-shake from the Armour community. But it was a good way to burn off excess staff planning time and resources  : since apparently we had nothing else to do.



Bit of a quick introduction, I am apart of a group that is prowling through archives and hunting for interesting, unique or unheard of armored vehicles. I am currently in the process of having 3rd parties get myself the actual documentation on the Chimera itself. But, I always love to hear the whole story behind stuff, it's the most interesting part. The what is interesting, but the why is usually more so, in my opinion.

Is there any direct documentation on Corp 86 that you'd know of, or where I could begin to look? I mean, you're the guy that wrote it after all!

I'm actually in contact, supposedly, the artist during the design of the Chimera project (or so he claims) and he does say that there was a Canadian officer on his course!



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> From Sean Maloney (who is usually well researched), this brief mention of the "Chimera" in his draft Chapter 18 (unpublished - that ended up on the editor's floor) for a history of the RCAC.
> 
> There is also a mention of the Chimera (with a photo of the plastic model) in "Counterstroke" B-GL-309-007/FT-001.



Yup! Thank you, I already have that one, though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

For what it's worth: the Germans, pretty good soldiers, by and large, believed in the _Jagdpanzer_ (JgPz) and had them in service from circa 1940 until about 1990.

From:




The _Jagdpanzer 38_ which saw service in the 1940s


To:




The _Raketenjagdpanzer 4 Jaguar 2_ which was in service from 1965 to 1993


----------



## ohslowpoke

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For what it's worth: the Germans, pretty good soldiers, by and large, believed in the _Jagdpanzer_ (JgPz) and had them in service from circa 1940 until about 1990.
> 
> From:
> 
> The _Jagdpanzer 38_ which saw service in the 1940s
> To:
> The _Raketenjagdpanzer 4 Jaguar 2_ which was in service from 1965 to 1993




To be fair, those are quite different vehicles, but I digress!




			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall Corps 86 started in the mid-seventies as a project to resurrect the Canadian Army combat development (CD) process. For what seemed like a lot of good reasons at the time the army leadership did not place any constraints on or provide any guidance to the various teams formed to produce the various branches' input into a divisional structure. There also was no underlying concept of operations other than to be part of the defence of Western Europe.
> 
> The result was a huge organization that had no chance of ever being authorized. It was used as the order of battle at CLFCSC, but the deputy commandant of the college remarked to me that it was too big and cumbersome and the students were never challenged in trying to make do with too many tasks and not enough "stuff."
> 
> There were some positives, including developing staff methodology for CD, so it was not a complete waste of time and (lots of) money.



It seems like it was more or less just a good exercise to get people's brains moving, but it was a little bit on the fanciful (or fantasy) side of things?


----------



## Old Sweat

ohslowpoke said:
			
		

> To be fair, those are quite different vehicles, but I digress!
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like it was more or less just a good exercise to get people's brains moving, but it was a little bit on the fanciful (or fantasy) side of things?



The original 1940 guns were assault guns (like the Mobile Gun System we almost got) that were the result of a 1935 proposal by Oberst Erich von Manstein and were assigned to the artillery.

What follows is an extract something I wrote about them a while back:

The battery was equipped with a new weapon – the Sturmgeschutz III Ausft. A or StuG III – a 75mm short barrelled gun mounted in the modified hull of the Panzer III tank.  The gun grew from a 1935 proposal by Oberst Erich von Manstein that Sturmartillerie units equipped with assault guns mounted on tracked chassis should accompany attacking infantry to knock out pill-boxes, machine gun nests, anti-tank guns and other strong points. A Sturmgeschutz training manual explained that “Assault guns are an offensive weapon and give the infantry immediate, powerful support through mobility, fire and striking power." Unlike a tank, the gun in the StuG III was mounted in the hull, so except for the final aiming by the gunner, the gun had to be pointed towards the target by the driver jockeying the vehicle. The 75mm StuK 37 L/24 gun was mounted offset to the right in a sloped armoured superstructure mounted on the welded hull of the Panzer III. From January to May1940, 30 Sturmgeschutz III Ausf A were produced. Of these, 24 went to Sturmartillerie Batteries 640, 659, 660 and 665 and saw service during the French Campaign. The remaining six assault guns were issued to the Sturmartillerie battery of the LSSAH.


----------



## ohslowpoke

The original StuG was designed as, primarily an infantry support platform, provided with a weapon designed for direct support of the infantry.

The Chimera it seems, was designed primarily for it's role as an anti-tank platform and resembles perhaps the WW2 Era Jagdpanther, designed from the outset as a tank-killer, with a tank-killer gun and armor that was as good or better than that current generation of tanks it was designed to fight.


----------



## vonGarvin

The StuG ("Stürmgeschütz") was designed as an assault gun and crewed by the artillery, who took great pride in providing (very) close support to the infantry.  By the time the "G" model came out, it had morphed somewhat: no longer did it have the short barrel 75mm; it was now a long 75mm, and its role was altered to be able to also provide anti tank fire.  It also morphed into the Sturmhaubitze, which mounted a 105mm.

StuH:






StuG G:





StuG B:


----------



## ohslowpoke

Also, while I'm very grateful for your shared knowledge about Jagdpanzers and StuGs in general, but I must admit that I actually a researcher myself ([) and much of this information is rather elementary at least in the study of armor from WW2 to modern day.

I am most certainly glad you are engaging me in my quest for obscure knowledge of Canadian doctrine and Tank Destroyer projects from the cold war.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Wasn't there a plan to arm the Bobcat with the 106mm RR?

Now I wonder which game he is working on.....hmmm would it happen to be in Open Beta?  8)


----------



## ohslowpoke

Actually, there was a couple of plans for the Bobcat!

I've actually found a whole bunch of stuff in the Archives; 
Canadian Radar guides missiles (in 1945), Canuck Gun (lengthened 6-pounder), 6-Pounder Anti-Aircraft gun, Canadian testing of all sorts of vehicles.


"Open Beta" might include any number of games, Colin! Take your pick, they're all in open beta! I am, of course, an avid gamer, so you'll find me on all of them, quite easily.
I however, am not a hired goon. I'm actually interested in a lot of this stuff for my own selfish reasons, (simply 'because' might be an easy answer)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Funny enough while downloading the update for AW, in the graphic areas a modernish TD appears with what looked 120mm with fume extractor and looking a wee bit like the Chimera, coincidence? hmmmmm


----------



## ohslowpoke

The Taifun II, perhaps?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes that would be it, dang


----------



## daftandbarmy

Let's have one of these little beauties issued per platoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZm7sLzDwGY


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Funny how much this idea was alive at the time, the S-tank, Kannon-Panzer I knew about back then , but not the other 4 (Taifun II, Chimera, British Jagdchieftain and German dual gun TD).


----------



## McG

ohslowpoke said:
			
		

> I've got better.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/ftWFTeJ.jpg
> 
> I've also got a couple of original documents related to it that I am, unfortunately, unable to share. But I'm looking to complete my collection, so to speak.


In your picture, I see the Union Jack on the glacius and several Challenger 1 like characteristics.  Was Chimera a plan to jump on a never realized UK tank destroyer project?


----------



## vonGarvin

Tangent. Or maybe not. But in any event, this video highlights the evolution of the StuG:  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=08wP9JODO78&feature=share


----------



## Kirkhill

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Tangent. Or maybe not. But in any event, this video highlights the evolution of the StuG:  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=08wP9JODO78&feature=share



Non tangential.  Good addition to the discussion.  In the modern world of multipurpose weaponry the Stug demonstrates the inherent flexibility of any good field gun - operating both in direct support and in anti-tank roles.  The same could be said of the 88 Flak Battalions that were used to great effect in Anti Air, Anti-Tank and DFS roles.  

It all comes down to the bullet, doesn't it?


----------



## a_majoor

Tank Destroyers have come and gone over the years, mostly due to limitations of curent tanks in *your* tank park, but sometimes due to doctrine.

The US had a rather disasterous experience with tank destroyers in WWII, mostly due to a flawed doctrine (although the idea that _tanks_ were not there to fight other tanks but to support infantry and rapidly exploit breaches in the line was conceptually sound for the time). They overcame the problems by outproducing the Germans by a considrable margin (even if five Shermans were killed for every Tiger, the Americans could throw more Shermans into the battle, while the Germans ran out of Tigers), upgunning tanks and evolving better tanks (althought the Pershing did not come out until the very end of the war). American TTPs for using tanks also changed.

The current state of the art machines like the Leopard 2, M-1 or Korean K-2 are very versatile, multipurpose machines. They have hard hitting cannons with a wide range of ammunition (including smart rounds and through tube missiles), and are heavily protected. The down side is modern Gen 3 tanks are expensive, and are not going to be available in large quantities. In the old days, recycling older tank chassis into tank destroyers and assault guns could cover the gap, but this isn't as big a deal as it was in the 1930's, since low cost ATGM's now substitute for anti tank cannon and Tank Destroyers.


----------



## McG

... but low cost ATGMs have a hard time getting through reactive armour, and active armour could be pretty good against even higher-end ATGM.


----------



## OldTanker

Not that the Corps 86 TD concept ever really had any legs to start with, but the overriding opinion in the Armoured Corps at the time (still?) was that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank and there was scant support for this option.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Russians and their client states still rely heavily upon the ATG. So they have tanks,ATG's, IFV's with auto cannons and ATGM's and ground mounted ATGM. supported by tube and MRLS artillery. Meanwhile we have the Carl G and 25mm auto cannon along with a few tanks.


----------



## GR66

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Russians and their client states still rely heavily upon the ATG. So they have tanks,ATG's, IFV's with auto cannons and ATGM's and ground mounted ATGM. supported by tube and MRLS artillery. Meanwhile we have the Carl G and 25mm auto cannon along with a few tanks.



As they say, quantity has a quality of its own.  While each of their weapon systems by themselves may not be as advanced our as effective as ours, they do have a wide variety and large quantity that can hit us in many different ways.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldTanker said:
			
		

> Not that the Corps 86 TD concept ever really had any legs to start with, but the overriding opinion in the Armoured Corps at the time (still?) was that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank and there was scant support for this option.



I thought the best anti-tank weapon was Treasury Board?  [


----------



## Kirkhill

OldTanker said:
			
		

> Not that the Corps 86 TD concept ever really had any legs to start with, but the overriding opinion in the Armoured Corps at the time (still?) was that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank and there was scant support for this option.



That was probably the reason that:

A) the Stug was an Artillery weapon attached to Infantry Divisions and 
B) the Panzers eventually tried to claim the Stugs as Panzers (and were rejected)

In North Africa Rommel killed British Tanks with batteries of 88 Flaks operating in the Anti-Tank role.
In Russia the Stugs did the same thing.

Tanks kill tanks 1 for 1 (plus or minus a bit of training and armour plate).

The way to defeat tanks is with bullets (or arrows).  How the bullets reach the armour is pretty immaterial.  IMO.


----------



## OldTanker

As I recall neither the Artillery nor Infantry were particularly interested in TDs at the time either. I would have cheerfully handed off the chore of trying to develop the doctrine to anyone else.


----------



## Kirkhill

OldTanker said:
			
		

> As I recall neither the Artillery nor Infantry were particularly interested in TDs at the time either. I would have cheerfully handed off the chore of trying to develop the doctrine to anyone else.



Fair dues.


----------



## Kirkhill

Maybe this would have helped with the doctrine development.

http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm



> The evolution, ebb and flow of anti-tank tactics in desert is an extensive subject and not fully addressed here.  Suffice to say it was a product of the circumstances.  One feature was close collaboration between anti-tank batteries and the divisional machine-gun battalion, MMG fire could force tanks to close down and protect the anti-tank guns against infantry.  The underlying problem for the 2-pdr was not just its inability to be effective against the front armour of German tanks but also its limited range and the space of the desert in the face of massed attack.
> 
> However, anti-tank tactics could be said to have been sorted out by the time of the Medinnine battle in Tunisia.  In this action 30 Corps was attacked by 10, 21 and part of 15 Pz Divs having had a few days to prepare their positions.  The anti-tank defence had been fully coordinated, including guns sited to destroy tanks and not directly protect infantry positions.  After four major attacks on 6 March 1943 the Africa Korps abandoned the action, it was not just the anti-tank guns but heavy concentrations of indirect fire as well.
> 
> Thereafter British anti-tank was mostly concerned with defeating armoured counter-attacks.  *A Corps HQ in Italy reported the following effective tactics:*
> 
> '(a) *The first weapon to arrive on the objective, which is capable of dealing with enemy tanks, is nearly always the tank itself*, *and there is no question of it being withdrawn until it is relieved by anti-tank guns, either SP M10s or towed guns.*  It must therefore stay in a hull down position in the forward infantry locality or only just behind it.  The infantry must bear in mind that, except in a village and town fighting when it is permisable to retain a few tanks forward, it is essential that tanks are released as soon as this is tactically possible.
> 
> (b) * The next weapon to come up should be the SP M10, and it should be kept well forward for this purpose*.  It is capable of moving over bullet-swept country, and can function without being dug-in.  Using its mobility, it can move from one side of the objective to the other, and so quickly counter any enemy tank threat.  An M10 should rarely remain stationary for any length of time unless under cover.  Its mobility makes it so much harder to knock out than a dug-in gun that can be located and neutralised.  The arrival of the M10s should enable the tanks to be released to proceed to a forward rally.
> 
> (c) *It will often be impossible to move forward the towed guns until after dark, or even if they could be got forward in might be impossible to dig them in.  When they are emplaced the M10s can withdraw to forward rally, and the tanks can be released for maintenance.*'



It sounds like the tank is for the offense, the SP is to hold what the tank takes and the towed gun is to dig in for the long haul.  These days, perhaps, more might be expected from ATGMs - both portable and mounted on light vehicles and helicopters.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OldTanker said:
			
		

> As I recall neither the Artillery nor Infantry were particularly interested in TDs at the time either. I would have cheerfully handed off the chore of trying to develop the doctrine to anyone else.



I would guess they'd be easier to transport by air and other means than an armoured vehicle with a turret, which may endear them to troops who might otherwise have to do without.


----------



## MilEME09

Good video on the subject I found is on youtube from tank fest, an American Tanker addresses some on the WWII myths, but also talks about the weird position TD's were in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> ... but low cost ATGMs have a hard time getting through reactive armour, and active armour could be pretty good against even higher-end ATGM.



True enough, but the TTP in this case is to use lots of ATGM's, since the cost/benefit ratrio is clearly in favour of the missile over the tank. (Even if the TOW costs as much as a mid sized sedan, a tank is over $3 million each, so you can afford to overwhelm the tank's active and passive defenses). At any rate, like the Russian example upthread suggests, a layered defense utilizing multiple weapons is the best defense, and assuming we were still in the situation of facing the Red Army in Divisional, Corps, Operational Manouevre Group and Army sized formations, then something like the Chimera would be a welcome addition to the mix. (You could also imagine something like an "M-10" with a 120 in an unarmoured turret, very fast and having a 3600 traverse).

Interestingly enough, the humble .50 HMG has a role in a defensive battle against mechanized forces, re-read the Rise, fall and rebirth of the Emma Gees (part 2) to see how a tightly integrated MG plan can strip away the tank's supporting arms.

and of course: http://army.ca/forums/threads/2941/post-1401785.html#msg1401785


----------



## Colin Parkinson

According Carius the Germans tanks feared the AT gun more than tanks, as you rarely knew where the gun was till fired. Also the role of the ATR as way to suppress a tanks effectiveness is under reported in the west. He notes how his Tiger was rendered inoperable by shots from an ATR and required towing back to repair the cooling system. He notes the Russians were masters at camouflage and could never be allowed the opportunity to dig in on newly captured ground as they will quickly establish a defensive perimeter and bring up AT guns asap. It will be interesting to see how much the Russians have retained from that era.
One can argue that it is harder to hide ATG’s now, but even spoofing us by creating decoys the enemy can create the desired effect on channelizing the armour to where you want it or forcing us to expend limited air and artillery assests on the decoys.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the proliferation of relatively low cost munitions, multiple platofrms to fire from and the ever growing ability of weapons to network with each other, the very idea of a fixed defensive line will pass into history. Of course, there will still be a need for a protected, mobile system to bring this sort of weaponry to where it is needed.

So the tank won't be fighting mythical beasts in the future, but facing off against swarms of wasps....


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> *One can argue that it is harder to hide ATG’s now*, but even spoofing us by creating decoys the enemy can create the desired effect on channelizing the armour to where you want it or forcing us to expend limited air and artillery assests on the decoys.



Who needs guns when you have guided missiles small enough to carry?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They seem to like the ATG's as they are useful as direct fire support. When your army is incapable of delivering accurate and effective indirect fire, you end up using DF and walk the rounds onto target.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That was probably the reason that:
> 
> A) the Stug was an Artillery weapon attached to Infantry Divisions and
> B) the Panzers eventually tried to claim the Stugs as Panzers (and were rejected)
> 
> In North Africa Rommel killed British Tanks with batteries of 88 Flaks operating in the Anti-Tank role.
> In Russia the Stugs did the same thing.
> 
> Tanks kill tanks 1 for 1 (plus or minus a bit of training and armour plate).
> 
> The way to defeat tanks is with bullets (or arrows).  How the bullets reach the armour is pretty immaterial.  IMO.



The German Panzer branch did not try to claim the Stug as they prefered tanks with rotating turrets. Panzer divisions were indeed issued Stugs on occasion when Panzer IV production lagged, but that was not a case of inter-branch politics. Stugs were generally held in battalions that were allocated for specific operations.

The many German Jagdpanzers and Stugs were basically industrial-level improvisations. They enabled obsolete AFVs to continue in service with a larger gun, and in some cases heavier armour, than would have been possible with a turret. For example, the Panzer III was essentially at obselesence by 1942 in the face of larger numbers of better protected tanks such as the T34, KV1 and indeed the Sherman. The Panzer III turret could not accomodate the longer calibre 75mm guns that were required to deal with their adveraries, but the production lines existed. Going the route of the Stug allowed the chassis to carry the longer 75mm and more armour. At the more extreme level were vehicles like the Hetzer that crammed a long 75mm gun onto a heavily modified chassis of a light tank that could only mount a 37mm gun. Existing production lines were used.

I do not believe that the Chimera was a serious project for Canada. It really did not fit into a role and it likely would have cost more than a Leopard since it would be whole new vehicle design. TOW existed to give Infantry battalions a means of dealing with enemy tanks at long range. The Armoured Corps had Leopards. Why make a new vehicle at great cost when that vehicle is not required? This is not capbadge politics, this is practicality. 

I could see, however, a modern gun-armoured "tank destroyer" built on a tank chassis if there was a true paradigmatic leap in protection. I will look at this in terms of KE and CE protection. 

If current tanks could be outfitted with active and/or passive armour that could reliably defeat all ATGMs then we would need more AT for our formations (by we I mean the West since Canada has no real AT besides our Leopards). Now, you could design a turretless AFV with a 120mm, but once again why do so when you could just make more tanks? Sights and associated fire controls are a huge part of the cost of an AFV, not to mention the costs of training the crews. If your choice was 200 Leopard 2A6Ms or 100 Leopard 2A6Ms and 100 Chimeras with turretless 120mm guns then what would your choice be?

If protection improved to the point that AFVs were also invulnerable to frontal attack by 120mm to 140 mm guns firing KE ammunition as well then perhaps something like a Chimera could see production. I am not sure what the upper limit on the turret ring of the Leopard 2/M1/Challenger 2 is, but if we need to exceed that then perhaps the day of the heavily armoured "tank destroyer" with a large cannon mounted on a turretless casemate will come. These clumsy beasts, I suppose, would duel like the war elephants of the Diodachi.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The German Panzer branch did not try to claim the Stug as they prefered tanks with rotating turrets. Panzer divisions were indeed issued Stugs on occasion when Panzer IV production lagged, but that was not a case of inter-branch politics. Stugs were generally held in battalions that were allocated for specific operations.
> 
> The many German Jagdpanzers and Stugs were basically industrial-level improvisations. They enabled obsolete AFVs to continue in service with a larger gun, and in some cases heavier armour, than would have been possible with a turret. For example, the Panzer III was essentially at obselesence by 1942 in the face of larger numbers of better protected tanks such as the T34, KV1 and indeed the Sherman. The Panzer III turret could not accomodate the longer calibre 75mm guns that were required to deal with their adveraries, but the production lines existed. Going the route of the Stug allowed the chassis to carry the longer 75mm and more armour. At the more extreme level were vehicles like the Hetzer that crammed a long 75mm gun onto a heavily modified chassis of a light tank that could only mount a 37mm gun. Existing production lines were used.
> 
> I do not believe that the Chimera was a serious project for Canada. It really did not fit into a role and it likely would have cost more than a Leopard since it would be whole new vehicle design. TOW existed to give Infantry battalions a means of dealing with enemy tanks at long range. The Armoured Corps had Leopards. Why make a new vehicle at great cost when that vehicle is not required? This is not capbadge politics, this is practicality.
> 
> I could see, however, a modern gun-armoured "tank destroyer" built on a tank chassis if there was a true paradigmatic leap in protection. I will look at this in terms of KE and CE protection.
> 
> If current tanks could be outfitted with active and/or passive armour that could reliably defeat all ATGMs then we would need more AT for our formations (by we I mean the West since Canada has no real AT besides our Leopards). Now, you could design a turretless AFV with a 120mm, but once again why do so when you could just make more tanks? Sights and associated fire controls are a huge part of the cost of an AFV, not to mention the costs of training the crews. If your choice was 200 Leopard 2A6Ms or 100 Leopard 2A6Ms and 100 Chimeras with turretless 120mm guns then what would your choice be?
> 
> If protection improved to the point that AFVs were also invulnerable to frontal attack by 120mm to 140 mm guns firing KE ammunition as well then perhaps something like a Chimera could see production. I am not sure what the upper limit on the turret ring of the Leopard 2/M1/Challenger 2 is, but if we need to exceed that then perhaps the day of the heavily armoured "tank destroyer" with a large cannon mounted on a turretless casemate will come. These clumsy beasts, I suppose, would duel like the war elephants of the Diodachi.



Tanks, like DS arty, can be taken away from the infantry at inopportune times to go off and do 'dashing cavalwy stuff'. ATGWs are relatively fragile and can be suppressed by arty, especially in the dismounted role.

The infantry are currently entrusted with APCs. Why not provide a simple 'S' tank type AT/ direct fire support vehicle that is fully integrated, and tags along, with the armoured Inf Bns on a scale of roughly one per rifle coy?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think that is what the role for the MGS was initially envisioned and actually used for by the US, rather than a tank like, tank replacements. The problem with the 120mm equipped CV90120-T is it looks to much like a tank and might be asked to act like one, by those who don't know enough, but think they do.


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not provide a .....


But you won't be happy with an AT capability; next you'll want mortars, pioneers.... you know, effective combat capabilities the Bn Comd could rely upon.   Madness.


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think that is what the role for the MGS was initially envisioned and actually used for by the US, rather than a tank like, tank replacements. The problem with the 120mm equipped CV90120-T is it looks to much like a tank and might be asked to act like one, by those who don't know enough, but think they do.



Yes.  And the Cougar was only meant to be a "Tank TRAINER".  So then we sent it to Somalia and Bosnia as a Recce/Lt Armour vehicle.  It would not have taken long for us to start employing the MGS in a role it was not suited for.


----------



## Loachman

And Cougar would have gone to Northern Norway as well as part of CAST Bde Group had the Godless Communist Hordes got uppity.


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tanks, like DS arty, can be taken away from the infantry at inopportune times to go off and do 'dashing cavalwy stuff'. ATGWs are relatively fragile and can be suppressed by arty, especially in the dismounted role.
> 
> The infantry are currently entrusted with APCs. Why not provide a simple 'S' tank type AT/ direct fire support vehicle that is fully integrated, and tags along, with the armoured Inf Bns on a scale of roughly one per rifle coy?



Scale of issue 1944

6x 6pdr AT Guns (57mm continuing in service as the Bofors 57mm employed by the RCN - not the gun but the calibre)

And 



> The (Divisional) Anti-tank Regiment also underwent numerous modifications.
> 
> From early 1943 it had thirty two towed 6-pdr and sixteen towed 17-pdr guns.  These were divided into four Batteries, each with two 6-pdr and one 17-pdr Troops, with four guns per Troop of the relevant calibre.
> 
> This was amended in early 1944 for Divisions that would operate in Northwest Europe.  The ratio of 6-pdr guns to 17-pdr guns was reversed, giving each Regiment thirty two towed 17-pdr and sixteen towed 6-pdr guns, with two 17-pdr and one 6-pdr Troop in each Battery.  Regiments in Italy began to adopt the new establishments during July 1944.
> 
> By late 1944 and into early 1945 however, further variations began to appear, largely as a result of the introduction of self-propelled 17-pdr guns in Northwest Europe.  There were also different establishments for those Regiments taking part in the Normandy assault, and local amendments made both in Italy and Northwest Europe.
> 
> Return to...



http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/British/Divisions/Inf%20Divs/british_infantry_division%201943%20to%201945.htm


Towed or SP I believe these were perceived as the anvil to the hammer of the tanks.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tanks, like DS arty, can be taken away from the infantry at inopportune times to go off and do 'dashing cavalwy stuff'. ATGWs are relatively fragile and can be suppressed by arty, especially in the dismounted role.
> 
> The infantry are currently entrusted with APCs. Why not provide a simple 'S' tank type AT/ direct fire support vehicle that is fully integrated, and tags along, with the armoured Inf Bns on a scale of roughly one per rifle coy?



If artillery could suppress an ATGM like Tow Under Armour then it could also suppress a light APC with a gun. I do not think that there is a true "simple" S tank direct fire AT weapon system that combines capability with simplicity/low cost. To make it worthwhile (sights and FCS), the price would approach that of a real tank. Ideally, infantry elements have integral ATGMs like TUA and Javelin.


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Tanks, like DS arty, can be taken away from the infantry at inopportune times to go off and do 'dashing cavalwy stuff'. ATGWs are relatively fragile and can be suppressed by arty, especially in the dismounted role.
> 
> The infantry are currently entrusted with APCs. Why not provide a simple 'S' tank type AT/ direct fire support vehicle that is fully integrated, and tags along, with the armoured Inf Bns on a scale of roughly one per rifle coy?


What magical feature of your simple s-tank makes it immune from being reallocated to higher prioreties in the same way that you note tanks and artillery can be reallocated?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I had always assumed that the S tank had been deployed like an assault gun or a TD for prepared positions. But in actual fact the Swedes intended to use them as a tank along with their Centurions. Having watched the successes of the ATGM’s in Syria, my appreciation of them has gone up (taking in account the local factors there) I still think the infantry needs some direct fire capability (and indirect) beyond the Carl Gustav. Against a near peer enemy you may not want to risk your limited ATGM’s to take on a bunker when some sort of mobile gun/howitzer will do. 
The problem I see with reliance on ATGM’s is that that training costs are high and usage is minimal for an army like ours until poop hits the fan and then we are scrambling to build up stocks at the same time everyone else is. Gun ammunition generally has a longer shelf life, lower initial costs and faster order fulfillment time. Not to mention you might not be beholden to one or 2 manufacturers.


----------



## daftandbarmy

MCG said:
			
		

> What magical feature of your simple s-tank makes it immune from being reallocated to higher prioreties in the same way that you note tanks and artillery can be reallocated?



We would have the CSM marry it, of course, and then it would officially become a dependent/ camp follower. 

No one except the Infantry would want to touch it then


----------



## Ostrozac

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We would have the CSM marry it, of course, and then it would officially become a dependent/ camp follower.
> 
> No one except the Infantry would want to touch it then



We tried that with 81mm Mortars. Even though multiple Warrant Officers  had devoted their lives to loving and caring for those girls, they still left us for the Artillerymen.

:crybaby:

And on a practical point, DFS weapons that are organic to the rifle company (like the Stryker MGS is in a US Stryker Company) are difficult to allocate to other priorities because they lack an overall command and control organization or echelon. Yes, in the original organization, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team had the equivalent of a battalion of DFS vehicles, but you couldn't direct a US SBCT to mass their their 27 MGS and deploy them on a separate task, because in those 27 vehicles you'd have no command vehicles, no echelon, no supplies, and the highest rank would be a lieutenant. It wouldn't be a battalion, it would be 9 platoons. So that's the closest thing to a "magical" attribute that organic weapons have -- they are not organized or equipped to be pulled away at short notice from their parent organizations.

Now, does the Canadian infantry need a gun-based heavy DFS weapon like the Stryker MGS or the S-Tank/Chimera? I doubt it. We have Carl G for bunker busting, and I am frankly much more terrified at our complete lack of ATGM. TOW is a great system. So is Milan. So is Javelin. For that matter, AT-13 isn't too bad. But having none of them makes you really naked on a modern battlefield.


----------



## OldTanker

I can only comment that the discussion on this thread far exceeds the discussion that occurred when I was trying to write the doctrine back in the '80s. Where were you all then?  :subbies:


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a picture I have been trying to find for years.  I first saw it about the same time Old Tanker was discussing Chimerical beasts.

It was an early RWS system in that the gunner controlled the weapon off "line of sight"

It was developed by Oerlikon and tested by the Swiss army but not selected.  The gun is the Oerlikon 25mm KBB and the entire system is known as the "Iltis".

http://www.bevfitchett.us/heavy-machine-guns/postwar-mm-antiaircraft-cannon.html

I keep thinking about these in the LIBs mounted on a trailer that could be hauled by a ATV/UTV/Jeep.  Together with some decent ATGMs.  But, of course, you have the C16 now - so you don't need any of this other stuff...  ;D


PS, before the Germans had the Wiesel  they had the Kraka - pretty much a trailer with a lawn mower motor.










I mention this to demonstrate how light a carriage would be necessary to put the existing 25mm into a field mount.  Add in a properly dug L-trench with decent overhead cover and wait for the hordes.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Mount it up to one of those Balkan self propelled roto-tillers and you've got something!


----------



## a_majoor

Looking at the past is indeed fun, and in some alternative timeline the Leopard and M-1 series tanks were going to be up gunned to 140mm cannon (not entirely sure what the Brits had in mind, I have never seen any serious discussion of Challengers armed with 140mm cannon). The problem was the amount of on board ammunition became very limited, the engagement times become much longer (loaders the size of NFL fullbacks would be loading 2 piece 140mm ammunition in most schemes) and the extra weight (including a much larger turret and extra armour to protect against putative Russian 152mm main cannon) made most of these proposals into lumbering motorized fortresses and sacrificed much of the advantage of having tanks in the first place.

 Even in the 1980's it was becoming clear that this was not the way to go. While the Corp 86 writers were dreaming up the Chimera, American designers were working on generation of advanced ammunition like TERM (Tank Extended Range Munition, a form of gun fired top attack round) and X-Rod (imagine an APDSFS round with a rocket booster). The Russians were introducing through tube missiles and everyone was working on various sorts of artillery delivered bomb lets and smart munitions (155mm "Copperhead" laser guided rounds, 120mm STRYX heat seeking mortar rounds and 81mm Merlin mortar rounds with millimetre radar seekers were under development at that time). Hordes of Russian tanks were to be met with a rain of smart artillery rounds, followed by various ATGMs (Hellfire was introduced, but FOG-M [Fibre Optic Guided Missile] and hypersonic LSAT were also being developed at the time). After making it through that gauntlet, the surviving tanks and armoured vehicles would be engaged at ranges of 10 Km by tanks firing TERM, and finally direct fire by rocket boosted rounds shot through the 120mm cannon.

One could make a case for building something like a CV90120 at that time, giving you a highly mobile protected gun system to get the tubes within 10km of the enemy, but the extra levels of protection of the Generation 3 tanks like the M-1, Leopard 2 and Challenger gave an extra level of versatility (few people in the 1980's were thinking of 4GW or engagements in complex and urban terrain), and of course they would also have extra protection against Russian artillery and ATGM fire as well.

So the Chimera was obsolete even _before_ it came off the drawing board. Its one possible advantage (a low profile and better ability to avoid detection ) was demonstrated by the Swedes almost 30 years before (the reason for the S Tank to eliminate the turret was to provide a low profile vehicle which was difficult to spot), but advances in tank optics and especially the introduction of attack helicopters had pretty much negated that line of development by the 1980's as well (The Swedish Army's own design for a next generation tank to replace the S Tank was a front engined, turreted tank with a 140mm cannon, cancelled due to the prohibitive cost of developing it).

The RWS grown to the size capable of handling a 120mm cannon was also under development at the time, and there are multiple examples of RWS tank designs from that time period as well. That line of development was also ended as part of the "peace dividend" (although the Russians eventually introduced the RWS into service with the T-14). I suspect that for the West, we might upgrade existing tanks by replacing the turret with an RWS or various low profile turrets (like the Wegmann "cleft" turret) to reduce the overall mass of the tank and improve its mobility, allowing us to quickly recycle thousands of existing Gen 3 tank hulls and maintain any current assembly lines in operation. The only "new" designs out are the Korean K-2 and a possible 120mm derivative of the PUMA IFV, so quickly growing the Western tank park is going to be difficult, to say the least.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Chris,

The day of towed anti-tank guns has past. The 6 pounder weighed 3,500 pounds, and the 17 pounder weighed 4,600 pounds. The 17 pounder in particular was a very large piece. Neither would have the ability to shift position after firing a round or two. Man-portable and/or vehicle mounted ATGMs have replaced ATGs for very good and practical reasons.

Regarding your dismounted 25mm, are you suggesting that we obtain a dismounted version of the 25mm Bushmaster that we have in our vehicles for the light battalions? The 25mm that we have in our vehicles is not the same one you have a picture of. Practicalities of dismounting aside, what purpose would it serve? It can't kill tanks and would be immobile once in action. Have you thought through the ammunition load and who would carry that stuff around? A Javelin missile system, on the other hand, weighs around 50 pounds and can kill/disable pretty much any AFV you face. While 50 pounds is not necessarily "light" for the fellow carrying it , the system is indeed manportable.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Chris,
> 
> The day of towed anti-tank guns has past. The 6 pounder weighed 3,500 pounds, and the 17 pounder weighed 4,600 pounds. The 17 pounder in particular was a very large piece. Neither would have the ability to shift position after firing a round or two. Man-portable and/or vehicle mounted ATGMs have replaced ATGs for very good and practical reasons.





> Regarding your dismounted 25mm, are you suggesting that we obtain a dismounted version of the 25mm Bushmaster that we have in our vehicles for the light battalions? The 25mm that we have in our vehicles is not the same one you have a picture of. Practicalities of dismounting aside, what purpose would it serve? It can't kill tanks and would be immobile once in action. Have you thought through the ammunition load and who would carry that stuff around? A Javelin missile system, on the other hand, weighs around 50 pounds and can kill/disable pretty much any AFV you face. While 50 pounds is not necessarily "light" for the fellow carrying it , the system is indeed manportable.



T2B,

It may not have a place in our doctrine anymore, but other countries still rely on them.  Towed guns and SPH have been used extensively (and successfully) in Ukraine in the anti-tank role.  In the recent past dismissing weapons as obsolete has proven to be a mistake and resulted in dead soldiers.  What is your reasoning that anti-tank guns are a thing of the past?  Is it because ATGMs can kill tanks better?  I would agree with that, but also mention you will always have more gun rounds than missiles, and probably more guns than firing posts.  Canada might not have the capacity to man anti-tank gun units, but that doesn't mean that a well-manned force with a developed doctrine that it actually uses cannot employ them effectively.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> T2B,
> 
> It may not have a place in our doctrine anymore, but other countries still rely on them.  Towed guns and SPH have been used extensively (and successfully) in Ukraine in the anti-tank role.  In the recent past dismissing weapons as obsolete has proven to be a mistake and resulted in dead soldiers.  What is your reasoning that anti-tank guns are a thing of the past?  Is it because ATGMs can kill tanks better?  I would agree with that, but also mention you will always have more gun rounds than missiles, and probably more guns than firing posts.  Canada might not have the capacity to man anti-tank gun units, but that doesn't mean that a well-manned force with a developed doctrine that it actually uses cannot employ them effectively.



So you think that I would ignore an enemy 100mm ATG because I consider it obsolete and would not recommend obtaining it for Canada? Where do you get that from? I wouldn't dismiss an enemy ATG any more than I would dismiss an enemy soldier equipped with a Lee-Enfield rifle. Having said that, I would be much more concerned about an enemy equipped with Javelins or Kornets than 100mm towed ATGs.

There are certainly some 100mm ATGs still out there, and if its all you have then you use it. Indeed, the OPFOR we teach from has some towed ATGs in them. There are also recoilless rifle systems out there that we would not use, but of course they would be a threat to us.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> So you think that I would ignore an enemy 100mm ATG because I consider it obsolete and would not recommend obtaining it for Canada? Where do you get that from? I wouldn't dismiss an enemy ATG any more than I would dismiss an enemy soldier equipped with a Lee-Enfield rifle. Having said that, I would be much more concerned about an enemy equipped with Javelins or Kornets than 100mm towed ATGs.
> 
> There are certainly some 100mm ATGs still out there, and if its all you have then you use it. Indeed, the OPFOR we teach from has some towed ATGs in them. There are also recoilless rifle systems out there that we would not use, but of course they would be a threat to us.



Of course the rock being thrown at you is the threat of the moment, where do you get the idea that I was saying you would ignore an AT gun?  I was looking for the reasoning behind you saying that 





> The day of towed anti-tank guns has past.[/qoute] and why you consider it obsolete.  Is it simply the size/weight you mention?  The perception of a threat is different on the ground is often different from Canada.  To me it appears that in this case there is a acknowledgement that AT guns exist in the ORBAT of the nation that our OPFOR is modeled on, but are not worth considering as a modern weapon system.  Why is that?


----------



## Kirkhill

T2B:

What happens when, like in most countries of the world where space is a luxury, you cannot manoeuvre your way around your attacker but you actually have to hold ground?  Where the Ministry of National Defence actually plans to Defend turf?

The Swedes, with their S tank and their obsolete recoilless guns (which we use) are defending turf 1000 km long and 100 km deep in places.  In close country.  In cities.  In those circumstances an obsolete recoilless gun looks to be a lot better option than a molotov cocktail or a gammon bomb.  And that is indicative of the level of commitment they have to the defence.  Templated or not.

Even in our offensively minded army sometimes it is necessary to hold ground, come what may.  Bagram, Kandahar, FOBs - all had to be held against the hordes.  Even after Patton went charging through the lines somebody had to infill behind him and hold that ground to prevent against a Battle of the Bulge.

Airheads and Ports need to be seized and held and in the immortal words, the battle goes to "the fustest with the mostest".  The bigger the gun that you can get there with, the bigger the amount of armour the other guy needs to dig you out.  the more roads with bigger bridges to get to your lodgement.  12.7 is better than 7.62. 25 is better than 12.7.  35 is better than 25.  And so on through 40, 57, 76, 90, 105, 120 and 140.

I don't care about whether the guns are towed or sp.  I don't even really care if they are armoured or not.  The critical issue for me is how many muzzles and how many missiles (in the classical sense that a bullet is a missile).  

I love the concept of the Javelin and from all reports they do a bang up job (couldn't help myself - sorry).  But 50 lbs is still 50 lbs and $100,000 is still $100,000.  Only the Yanks seem prepared to issue them at Section Level.  Everyone else seems to make do with a dozen or so per battalion.

As to the specific utility of the 25mm:  if it is so lacking in utility on the modern battlefield why are you using it as your primary weapon of both the infantry and the "cavalry"?

Here's a tactical problem for consideration:

A field force equipped with a troop of M777s, a GBAD battery of 35mms and ESSMs, 6x 25mm on trailers with spades supported by ATVs and a dozen Javelin posts, together with 8x 81mm and 4 small rifle coys, with earth moving equipment, delivered by helo and airlanding to a location remote from the centre of activity.

What size of force do you need to gather with what capabilities and how long will it take you to get them to an FUP with an assault plan in place?  

And while you are doing that what are the defenders of the airhead/port doing?

In my mind they could be being reinforced.  They could be moving out and conducting raids.  They could be organizing a recovery of Canadians in a NEO.  They could be creating a humanitarian corridor to refuges or they could be evacuating refugees.

If the choice is between a gun without armour and mobility vice no gun at all because you can't get 60 tonnes of armour plate to the scene of the crime then I will take the gun.

Besides it is a lot easier to dig in a gun than it is to dig in a tank or, heaven forfend, a LAV.

Thanks again T2B.  I enjoy the opportunity.


----------



## a_majoor

The Russians use a towed 125mm tank cannon as their primary anti tank cannon, and the "2S25 Sprut SD" is the modern day counterpart to an M-10 tank destroyer (also mounting the 125mm derived from the 125mm tank cannon). I would also be more concerned by modern Russian ATGM's due to their longer engagement envelopes, but Russia still has a large enough establishment to mann a layered defense with multiple systems.

Since we have a very small establishment with little room for boutique specialties, I would much rather focus on layering multiple long range systems like artillery "smart rounds" and ATGMs to reach out and touch them at the longest range possible, and leave the DF fire to the tanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Russians use a towed 125mm tank cannon as their primary anti tank cannon, and the "2S25 Sprut SD" is the modern day counterpart to an M-10 tank destroyer (also mounting the 125mm derived from the 125mm tank cannon). I would also be more concerned by modern Russian ATGM's due to their longer engagement envelopes, but Russia still has a large enough establishment to mann a layered defense with multiple systems.
> 
> Since we have a very small establishment with little room for boutique specialties, I would much rather focus on layering multiple long range systems like artillery "smart rounds" and ATGMs to reach out and touch them at the longest range possible, *and leave the DF fire to the tanks.*



All 19 of them.  When they get there.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Of course the rock being thrown at you is the threat of the moment, where do you get the idea that I was saying you would ignore an AT gun?  I was looking for the reasoning behind you saying that i]The day of towed anti-tank guns has past.[/i] and why you consider it obsolete.  Is it simply the size/weight you mention?  The perception of a threat is different on the ground is often different from Canada.  To me it appears that in this case there is a acknowledgement that AT guns exist in the ORBAT of the nation that our OPFOR is modeled on, but are not worth considering as a modern weapon system.  Why is that?



I think that the quote boxes are getting muddled!

You stated that "dismissing weapons as obsolete has proven to be a mistake in the recent past and has resulted in dead soldiers." I took that as being aimed at me - perhaps it was not. I am saying that towed ATGs are obsolete - other systems can do the task much better. Towed ATGs are now quite large, which negates one of their advantages from 1944 (small size). 100mm ATGs are large, hard to hide and impossible to jockey once they fire. Rate of fire for guns vs missiles does not matter if the gun crew has been neutralized after they get their first rounds off.

Just because something is obsolete does not, of course, mean that it is not dangerous! A T55 is obsolete, but a company of them could cause a major drama for an infantry force lacking AT weapons. 

I will say again that I would still factor enemy ATGs into my estimate if they had them. I would not, however, suggest them as a weapon for Canada. I also note that the author of the Ukrainian article is not saying that we should send towed AT guns to the Ukrainians. Instead, he is advocating that the US should send them Javelins.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Chris,

What purpose do the "towed" 25mm guns fill in your plan? They seem like an answer looking for a question. We could bring in 50s and C19s to give your force additional direct fire capability, and you can certainly use Javelin against enemy bunkers and buildings. If the concern is enemy armour then why not just have eight more Javelin posts? Get our LAV TUA back and send eight of those while you are at it. If we are sending a Canadian Battle Group off into harm's way then the cost of the missile is not really an issue. 

The 25mm guns on LAVs and Coyotes are a different matter, of course, because they are vehicle-mounted. They can jockey around and carry ammunition on board. In a mechanized Battle Group they can effectively complement the 120mm guns on the Leopards and, if we had them, ATGMs.


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> All 19 of them.  When they get there.



Stated my point poorly. The layering effect of long range artillery and then long range ATGM's allows you to cover multiple approaches and engage the enemy beyond their weapons range. Artillery and ATGM's are also wonderful dual purpose weapons (consider how the British used Milan ATGM's to take out dug in Argentinian machine-gun posts from beyond the 1800m engagement range of the GPMG in the Falklands war), so you can do far more with a smaller number of people.

Even the 19 tanks, once they get into range, are also multipurpose weapons, not only do they mop up whatever makes it through the gauntlet, but can also launch counter attacks, or support Infantry with DF in ways that a Sprut mounted on its towed carriage cannot. While God is always on the side of the bigger battalions, when you only have small battalions then you must make do with what you have.


----------



## Kirkhill

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Chris,
> 
> What purpose do the "towed" 25mm guns fill in your plan? They seem like an answer looking for a question. We could bring in 50s and C19s to give your force additional direct fire capability, and you can certainly use Javelin against enemy bunkers and buildings. If the concern is enemy armour then why not just have eight more Javelin posts? Get our LAV TUA back and send eight of those while you are at it. If we are sending a Canadian Battle Group off into harm's way then the cost of the missile is not really an issue.
> 
> The 25mm guns on LAVs and Coyotes are a different matter, of course, because they are vehicle-mounted. They can jockey around and carry ammunition on board. In a mechanized Battle Group they can effectively complement the 120mm guns on the Leopards and, if we had them, ATGMs.



I agree that you could (and should) bring in the HMGs and C16s, and even the Javelins in more numbers. No argument.    My point on the 25s are that they and their ammunition are in the system and could be used to thicken the defence plan.   

The M242 weighs what? 125 kg.  Add in another 500 kg of batteries and mount (manual traverse and elevation - 1000 kg if you want a RWS) and you have something that can be delivered by helicopter.  Aiming for 6 per Chinook or 2 per Cyclone.  Deliver ammunition in Quad trailers.   With the LAV 6s I need a C17 to deliver two M242s.  Can you put an M242 on a jeep?  You lose protection but gain a lower profile, strategic mobility and something that is easier to dig in.

In the related thought, what would it take to put an L55 from a Leo 2 on a field carriage?  You already have the guns, parts and ammunition in the system?  What price to stand up a dozen ATGs for airborne support?  Send the mortars back to the Infantry and issue L55s to the Arty.  Strike that - I would sooner the gunners brought a full battery of M777s than a troop of M777s and and handful of L55s.  But if it came down to it and we were fighting for Canada midst jackpines and muskeg L55s on field carriages may have their place.

My problem with the LAVs (even the LAV-TUA) is that they are heavy and take up a large volume.  That limits their ability to be moved forward rapidly.   I am sure that even the old tripod mount, together with the TOW-RFs, would be welcome additions in any defence plan.  But I believe we got rid of the TOWs so even if we have TUA we don't have the ammunition.

I guess that goes to the heart of the matter, as far as I am concerned.  We spend forests debating platforms and how to get them from here to there, or how to afford them when what we really need are lots and lots of missiles on target.  The means of delivery, the platforms from which they are launched, the baseplate positions really are all secondary.

Thucydides:

I am all for multipurpose kit - and guns of all sorts are wonderful pieces of multi-purpose kit - because there really is very little limitation on what they can send down range these days.   That is why I would like to have as many of them on the ground as possible.  That is hard when they come with a 60 tonne slab of steel attached.  I am not saying that the 60 tonne slab isn't welcome, just that it puts on constraints on being fustest with mostest.  Note the quote: Forrest didn't say First with Most.  He qualified the statement in redneck speak - essentially getting there as soon as you can with as much as you can.

Second edit: WRT doing more with fewer people - that is in part why I said 4 SMALL rifle coys in my scenario.  In my world, with the manning restrictions you guys face, I would spread my 450 infanteers per battalion into 4 rifle coys based on 6 man sections with a company MG group, and a battalion mortar group of 8x 81mm.  One of the rifle coys would have a rifle platoon specialized in recce, another in pioneering and another in AT with the MG group being replaced by snipers.  Doing more with less.


----------



## GR66

This is really the old Armour vs. Mobility and Quality vs. Quantity debates.  Specifically, does the increasing quality (and therefore cost) of the platform carrying the weapon decrease the quantity of the weapons to a level that they are no longer effective?

Does the cost difference between a LAV 6.0 and a LAV III mean that we have less 25mm guns available...or not be able to affort other variants like a TUA?  Could we have more than 19 x 120mm guns available if we went with a MGS-type platform, or a towed-ATG?

The same arguments are in the F-35 and Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy threads.  What is the balance we strike between quality and quantity?

I guess it depends on what level and type of threat you realistically expect to face.  If it's an Afghanistan where every casualty is a political loss then a relatively small number of high-end platforms would seem to make sense.  If it's an all-out near-peer battle where final victory is the only option then maybe more bullets is the answer.

It would be nice to think that someone at the top of the military and political food chains are having these types of discussions but I have a feeling that I'd likely be very disappointed by the answer to that question.


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66

I would be happy if we were discussing "balance" generally.  But I always get the sense that the Canadian discussion comes down to:  "What should I buy to appease the Yanks?  A plane, a ship or a tank?"


----------



## AmmoTech90

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I think that the quote boxes are getting muddled!


Yes!

It was not aimed at you, it was aimed at a system that gives direction on new rank insignia but not threats.

I think Javelin/ATGM is good for Canada, because we have limited resources and basically we need every shot to count from the limited number of firing posts we can deploy.  If we had the resources to man batteries of AT guns then perhaps we could find a use for them.  As we cannot even find the wherewithal to procure an ATGM, I think we should not get a gun system; not because it wouldn't be useful, but we couldn't deploy it in useful numbers.

Dismounted static small cannon in a ground role seems to me to provide very little bang for your buck.  You are taking a equivalent of a LAV crew and putting them outside armour with no mobility and two less MGs.  You can budget around 1 kg per round for ammo, so around 300-400 rounds if you are lucky in an ATV trailer.


----------



## Danjanou

As long as we are semi seriously discussing this Cold War would have been weapon system, and if  a mobile, meaning can rapidly change position after 1-2 shots as well as defeat enemy MBTs, AT asset for the infantry is what we need moving forward. Maybe time to bring back and modernize this Cold War gem.  A couple per rifle company to supplement the Charlie G perhaps, and/or a platoon of 4-6 more sat Bn level

Vespa 150 TAP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vespa_150_TAP#







I know it looks humerous but  designed for French Airborne and other light forces it kind of makes sense. Two man crew each with their own vehicle one with the weapon and the other with tripod (it was not designed to be fired while mounted) and spare rounds. Update with a perhaps something with more off road capability. Perfect shoot and scoot system.


----------



## a_majoor

About that 60 ton slab of steel:

It can move at speeds of up to 70kph, and has a range of 550km and allows the gun to be used by day, night, in contaminated environments, can track and attack multiple targets, including low flying helicopters, provides passive protection for the Infantry following behind, DF support for the following Infantry (directing the fire through the tank telephone), plus protects the crew from a wide variety of DF and IF threats. Getting it into theatre is a problem which I freely acknowledge (indeed you know I am a big proponent of the CV 90120, which is a 30 ton slab of steel with many of the same attributes of the Leopard 2A6, minus the heavy layers of passive protection). This is a variation of the sort of argument which led to the M-10 in the US Army back in WWII.

I'm afraid the Quantity vs Quality argument is decisively tipped towards "Quality" for the next generation due to declining demographics in Western societies and the generally low attractiveness of military service in these societies. We simply cannot field large forces anymore unless we resort to compulsion. OTOH, if *we* were to insist on streamlined management it seems possible to get far lower costs and mass production of weapons like ATGMs and smart tank and artillery rounds. And in the future, swarms of smart rounds/missiles/bomblets seem to be the direction of future weaponry, overwhelming defences with mass attacks coming from multiple directions. The Swedish "Archer" 155mm SP with a magazine fed cannon is a demonstration of the sort of platform which may be common in the future (only needs a crew of 3 in the field). The F-35 demonstrates another direction, where weapons and platforms have advanced sensors and data sharing to find an elusive enemy and run them to earth.

Like I mentioned earlier upthread, many of these ideas have their roots in programs started in the 1980's, so the Chimera was an obsolete idea even then. (and as a 60 ton slab of steel without a rotating turret it would be far less versatile than a Gen 3 tank)


----------



## GR66

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> GR66
> 
> I would be happy if we were discussing "balance" generally.  But I always get the sense that the Canadian discussion comes down to:  "What should I buy to appease the Yanks?  A plane, a ship or a tank?"



The Canadian discussion I think comes more from a lack of will by those on top to make tough decisions.  To be a true, multi-purpose, full-spectrum army we'd need the infantry to have Javelin backed by TUA and a DF gun, mortars, artillery, dedicated CAS, etc., etc., etc.  

The cost of each of these individual components (in their "latest and greatest" form) are ever increasing and our budget cannnot keep up with these increases.  A difficult decision needs to be made.  Do we drop certain capabilities alltogether and become and army of niche capabilities, or do we stop buying the "latest and greatest" of each platform and settle for whatever we can afford that fulfills the role?


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> About that 60 ton slab of steel:
> 
> It can move at speeds of up to 70kph, and has a range of 550km and allows the gun to be used by day, night, in contaminated environments, can track and attack multiple targets, including low flying helicopters, provides passive protection for the Infantry following behind, DF support for the following Infantry (directing the fire through the tank telephone), plus protects the crew from a wide variety of DF and IF threats. Getting it into theatre is a problem which I freely acknowledge (indeed you know I am a big proponent of the CV 90120, which is a 30 ton slab of steel with many of the same attributes of the Leopard 2A6, minus the heavy layers of passive protection). This is a variation of the sort of argument which led to the M-10 in the US Army back in WWII.
> 
> I'm afraid the Quantity vs Quality argument is decisively tipped towards "Quality" for the next generation due to declining demographics in Western societies and the generally low attractiveness of military service in these societies. We simply cannot field large forces anymore unless we resort to compulsion. OTOH, if *we* were to insist on streamlined management it seems possible to get far lower costs and mass production of weapons like ATGMs and smart tank and artillery rounds. And in the future, swarms of smart rounds/missiles/bomblets seem to be the direction of future weaponry, overwhelming defences with mass attacks coming from multiple directions. The Swedish "Archer" 155mm SP with a magazine fed cannon is a demonstration of the sort of platform which may be common in the future (only needs a crew of 3 in the field). The F-35 demonstrates another direction, where weapons and platforms have advanced sensors and data sharing to find an elusive enemy and run them to earth.
> 
> Like I mentioned earlier upthread, many of these ideas have their roots in programs started in the 1980's, so the Chimera was an obsolete idea even then. (and as a 60 ton slab of steel without a rotating turret it would be far less versatile than a Gen 3 tank)



I have no doubt about the value of a 60 tonne slab of steel, nor even of a 30 tonne LAV.... when it is available.

I am talking about what can be done to buy the time and space to get those behemoths in theater.   With 5 C 17s available how long is it going to take you to deliver a Squadron of LAVs reinforced by a Troop of tanks?

Danjanou's Vespa concept isn't wrong.  Nor, is the concept of a jeep mounted auto-cannon, in my opinion.  I am not talking about slugging it out or even patrolling rabbit runs for 10 years.  I am talking about the first 72 hours of lodgement so that you can start flying that troop of tanks in. And continue thickening the defence.


----------



## Kilo_302

Bruce Gundmundsson's "On Armour" has some pretty fascinating bits on the German doctrine of TDs/assault guns as sort of an "armoured guerilla force" in the defense. Excellent read, as is anything he does.

http://www.amazon.com/Armor-Military-Profession-Bruce-Gudmundsson/dp/0275950204


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The day of towed anti-tank guns has past. The 6 pounder weighed 3,500 pounds, and the 17 pounder weighed 4,600 pounds. The 17 pounder in particular was a very large piece. Neither would have the ability to shift position after firing a round or two. Man-portable and/or vehicle mounted ATGMs have replaced ATGs for very good and practical reasons.


But if your enemy is succesfully employing systems like ARENA and Shtora to defeat ATGM, then you might need to fall back to gun systems.


----------



## AmmoTech90

MCG said:
			
		

> But if your enemy is succesfully employing systems like ARENA and Shtora to defeat ATGM, then you might need to fall back to gun systems.



Yes, once launched there are at least two, normally three, points where an ATGM can be defeated, on target (is your armour/APS good enough), in flight (obscurants, jamming, spoofing), and if not ACLOS, at the firing post (disrupt the command signal).  Target point is the only chance you have to defeat an APFSDS.  Pretty far into the protection onion.


----------



## Old Sweat

Here is a recollection of an "engagement" between ATGMs and MBTs in Gagetown - specifically the Lawfield impact area - in 1963. There were two jeep-mounted ENTACs from the RCAC School firing inert training warheads and two RCD Centurions commanded by the CO and the IO. The ENTAC was controlled by an operator using a joy stick so visual contact was required during the engagement. The demonstration was staged for the 3 CIBG officers prior to an exercise to validate combat development studies on various means to defeat Soviet armour in Germany.

The two Centurions broke from dead ground and crossed an open area in which they were engaged by the ATGMs fired from defilade at close to maximum range which was about 2000m. This was repeated a number of times. In the first engagement the tanks did not observe the missile firing and it hit the IO's Centurion with a loud "dong," producing some colourful language on the net which was being broadcast over loudspeakers to the audience. The next time one of the buttoned-up crew commanders spotted the firing and both tanks were able to drive into cover before the missile arrived.

The third engagement was a bust as the missile malfunctioned. There were lesson to be learned from the two other ones, including observation, use of ground and HE and smoke suppressive fire, both direct and indirect.


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And while you are doing that what are the defenders of the airhead/port doing?



Dying in an artillery barrage because they lack armour protection and mobility...?


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman said:
			
		

> Dying in an artillery barrage because they lack armour protection and mobility...?



Digging in and getting under cover so that they can continue fighting like the Fallschirmjaeger did here?







Remember I said earth-moving kit was on my wish list.

Stalingrad, Berlin, Grozny, Tobruk, together with Arnhem, all come to mind.

How long does it take XXX Corps to arrive?  They promised 72 hours.  The ground was held for 9 days and they still didn't show up.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How long does it take XXX Corps to arrive?  They promised 72 hours.  The ground was held for 9 days and they still didn't show up.



And people questioned why we didn't like crap hats


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

MCG said:
			
		

> But if your enemy is succesfully employing systems like ARENA and Shtora to defeat ATGM, then you might need to fall back to gun systems.



Sure, and on the previous page I raised that possibility as a reason how we could conceivably see a return to tank destroyers like the mythical Chimera. Towed ATGs capable of defeating modern MBTs, however, would be very large and practically immobile in action.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Sure, and on the previous page I raised that possibility as a reason how we could conceivably see a return to tank destroyers like the mythical Chimera. Towed ATGs capable of defeating modern MBTs, however, would be very large and practically immobile in action.



Like the D 30? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBf2DDPDVps

I have no idea how they'd fare against the M-1 et al though....


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Sure, and on the previous page I raised that possibility as a reason how we could conceivably see a return to tank destroyers like the mythical Chimera. Towed ATGs capable of defeating modern MBTs, however, would be very large and practically immobile in action.


Yes, or we start using SPH in a direct fire role.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> Yes, or we start using SPH in a direct fire role.



Which is an excellent way to lose a bunch of them in a hurry. SPHs have neither armoured protection nor a suitable fire control system for direct fire. They do have a nice high silhouette, which helps when looking for the centre of the visible mass. As for effects in the target area an HE round is good against troops in the open or dug in without much overhead protection, but it sucks against armour or bunkers.


----------



## quadrapiper

Is there a role in the FOB or other entirely fixed emplacements (and is that fixed setting large enough to equip for?) for older-style anti-tank/direct fire kit? I'm thinking of anything that's cheaper per round fired.


----------



## McG

If we are worried about an any capable of throwing tanks in quantity onto the battle field, then we do not want to be building FOBs.


----------



## a_majoor

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I have no doubt about the value of a 60 tonne slab of steel, nor even of a 30 tonne LAV.... when it is available.
> 
> I am talking about what can be done to buy the time and space to get those behemoths in theater.   With 5 C 17s available how long is it going to take you to deliver a Squadron of LAVs reinforced by a Troop of tanks?
> 
> Danjanou's Vespa concept isn't wrong.  Nor, is the concept of a jeep mounted auto-cannon, in my opinion.  I am not talking about slugging it out or even patrolling rabbit runs for 10 years.  I am talking about the first 72 hours of lodgement so that you can start flying that troop of tanks in. And continue thickening the defence.



We're in violent agreement then. At any rate, for the first 72 hrs, fire support is coming in the form of aircraft dropping smart bombs (some glide bombs have ranges of 60km or more), missiles, and cruise missiles launched from sea based platforms. The troops debussing from the airheads would ideally have something like the Javelin, which is effective against most tanks and has some limited ability to strike helicopters at ranges of up to 3000m, giving them another layer of defensive firepower. The arrival of the tanks and AFV's means you are now switching from the defensive to the offensive phase of the operation, so unless the plan requires you to go to the offensive immediately, you might not be too disadvantaged by the long lead up times (although if we are to be an expeditionary force, then the CV90120 or PUMA represents the "top end" of what we should be operating, given transportation and logistical constraints).

WRT using SP howitzers in the DF role, the former Soviet Union was prepared to make that call. Looking at their 122 and 152mm SP howitzers, you can clearly see a commander's cupola, something not particularly useful in a SP but the Soviets were convinced that they could thicken the firepower using the weapons in DF roles, and especially as a means of outmatching ATGM posts. I don't think a typical tank of the early 1980's would be having a very good day if struck by a 152mm HE shell either (most being Gen 2 machines like the Leopard1, AMX 30, M-60 and so on).


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> We're in violent agreement then. At any rate, for the first 72 hrs, fire support is coming in the form of aircraft dropping smart bombs (some glide bombs have ranges of 60km or more), missiles, and cruise missiles launched from sea based platforms. The troops debussing from the airheads would ideally have something like the Javelin, which is effective against most tanks and has some limited ability to strike helicopters at ranges of up to 3000m, giving them another layer of defensive firepower. The arrival of the tanks and AFV's means you are now switching from the defensive to the offensive phase of the operation, so unless the plan requires you to go to the offensive immediately, you might not be too disadvantaged by the long lead up times (although if we are to be an expeditionary force, then the CV90120 or PUMA represents the "top end" of what we should be operating, given transportation and logistical constraints).
> 
> ...



My scenario.  My rules.  .... Can't fly SPHs in on the first wave under helos.  Can do that with the M777.   [

WRT the arrival of "behemoths".  I wouldn't say you are switching from offense to defence.  I would suggest that until you have sufficient mass in theatre all you are doing is building offensive capability - which means that as soon as you can get your first pair of Leo's on the ground the more effective your Local Reaction Force will be and the harder it will become to get knocked off the hill.  Thus buying more time and space.

But, in my non-expert opinion, the primary issue is how many bullets and missiles and how many launchers, with the minimum number of operators, can you get on the ground in the first wave so that they can create a perimeter before the other guy knows they are there.

And if they had a pair of Absalons and an Huitfeldt off shore as a Forward Mounting Base......

Hey, it's Christmas time and its my scenario  :subbies:


----------



## McG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Which is an excellent way to lose a bunch of them in a hurry. SPHs have neither armoured protection nor a suitable fire control system for direct fire. They do have a nice high silhouette, which helps when looking for the centre of the visible mass. As for effects in the target area an HE round is good against troops in the open or dug in without much overhead protection, but it sucks against armour or bunkers.





			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> WRT using SP howitzers in the DF role, the former Soviet Union was prepared to make that call. Looking at their 122 and 152mm SP howitzers, you can clearly see a commander's cupola, something not particularly useful in a SP but the Soviets were convinced that they could thicken the firepower using the weapons in DF roles, and especially as a means of outmatching ATGM posts. I don't think a typical tank of the early 1980's would be having a very good day if struck by a 152mm HE shell either (most being Gen 2 machines like the Leopard1, AMX 30, M-60 and so on).


I think you will also find that the Russians and Ukranians employed Gvozdika in the direct fire role (both as assault gun and tank destroyer) to good effect in their war over east Ukraine.  More SPH casualties than if these were employed solely in an indirect role?  Probably.  But in war, you sometimes risk casualties to win or to just keep more of your force alive.  If ATGM can be technologically defeated, the direct fire SPH is not a tool we should discount.  Hopefully the requirements guys keep that in mind whenever they get around to staffing for a new SPH; we could engineer it to be ready for such eventuality.


----------



## Old Sweat

It is my understanding that the Soviets used to design both their towed and SP artillery for employment in direct and indirect fire roles. We did not, nor I believe, did the Germans.


----------



## Danjanou

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It is my understanding that the Soviets used to design both their towed and SP artillery for employment in direct and indirect fire roles. We did not, nor I believe, did the Germans.



Every thing I've read on their towed Arty in the Second World War, oops sorry Great Patriotic War, suggests that was the case.


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> I think you will also find that the Russians and Ukranians employed Gvozdika in the direct fire role (both as assault gun and tank destroyer) to good effect in their war over east Ukraine.  More SPH casualties than if these were employed solely in an indirect role?  Probably.  But in war, you sometimes risk casualties to win or to just keep more of your force alive.  If ATGM can be technologically defeated, the direct fire SPH is not a tool we should discount.  Hopefully the requirements guys keep that in mind whenever they get around to staffing for a new SPH; we could engineer it to be ready for such eventuality.



If I were to do that I'd be looking at something along the lines of the Swedish Archer gun system mounted on the South African G-6. Fast, relatively mobile and carrying a hard hitting gun to start, and the magazine fed weapon of the Archer reduces the amount of people needed at the sharp end and provides some interesting options for the artillery.

As a 155, we should also be looking at expanding the ammunition selection, everything from the extended range rounds the USN is looking at (a fire mission shot from 80km away will spoil pots of people's days), "smart rounds" like Excalibur, carrier shells for submunitions and of course the traditional HE and smoke. I would also be looking into mass production so the artillery park has actual, you know, guns; not to mention applying streamlined management and mass production principles to bring down the unit cost of ammunition as well (especially the smart rounds). Having enough to equip the entire RCA with these weapons (Regular and Reserve) would also do a lot to provide depth to the artillery park, and a larger pool of trained gunners (the Regular Force can handle the higher end stuff, so long as the crews of the SPH can apply the inputs and fire the guns at the targets when ordered).

As a complimentary system, I would also look at rebuilding the tanks with low profile Wegman turrets, especially since an existing example (the 105mm CV-CT can elevate the gusto 420, providing both the ability of shooting semi indirect _and _ providing DF against annoying people on rooftops and other high places.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Soviet/Russian and their clients see things differently, SPG's will be used to take out strong points. For an airborne assault onto an objective against one their client states I would be worrying more about a Grad/thermobaric counterstrike in the first day before they have had a chance to dig in. Armour attack will likely be piecemeal.

For airborne troops, mortars and ATGM's, with Carl G, LAWS and other handheld DF weapons make sense as most of your transported weight is munitions and not delivery systems. 

You could go back to the Kannonpanzer, with a Low pressure gun 105mm-120mm for DF and a TOW mount for AT work or have a mixed unit with Tow and gun equipped vehicles on the same chassis. The Leopard 1 chassis would have worked, give it decent front Armour and very light side armour. The MGS turret would work as well.


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Soviet/Russian and their clients see things differently, SPG's will be used to take out strong points. For an airborne assault onto an objective against one their client states I would be worrying more about a Grad/thermobaric counterstrike in the first day before they have had a chance to dig in. Armour attack will likely be piecemeal.
> 
> For airborne troops, mortars and ATGM's, with Carl G, LAWS and other handheld DF weapons make sense as most of your transported weight is munitions and not delivery systems.
> 
> You could go back to the Kannonpanzer, with a Low pressure gun 105mm-120mm for DF and a TOW mount for AT work or have a mixed unit with Tow and gun equipped vehicles on the same chassis. The Leopard 1 chassis would have worked, give it decent front Armour and very light side armour. The MGS turret would work as well.



Perhaps something closer to the M8 AGS concept, a light tank with a good gun, with multiple add on armor packages that can be added later. This makes the tank light and air transportable, bring the add on armour seperately, bolt it on in theatre within a few hours, and you have your heavy armor to support your airborne forces. Heck could add a simple ATGM launcher to it in the design phase if we wanted to, or make the gun capable of firing a simple ATGM.


----------



## Ostrozac

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Perhaps something closer to the M8 AGS concept, a light tank with a good gun, with multiple add on armor packages that can be added later. This makes the tank light and air transportable, bring the add on armour seperately, bolt it on in theatre within a few hours, and you have your heavy armor to support your airborne forces. Heck could add a simple ATGM launcher to it in the design phase if we wanted to, or make the gun capable of firing a simple ATGM.



I think you just described the CV90120 with the LAHAT missile. Why over complicate things? All these weapons already exist. We don't need R&D, we need to articulate our requirements and buy off the shelf.


----------



## MilEME09

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I think you just described the CV90120 with the LAHAT missile. Why over complicate things? All these weapons already exist. We don't need R&D, we need to articulate our requirements and buy off the shelf.



Well a Version of the M8AGS already exists with a 120mm, Competition always drives prices down right? might be an idea for us as well to have a light tank to supplement the small leopard fleet we have at a reduced cost.


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well a Version of the M8AGS already exists with a 120mm, Competition always drives prices down right? might be an idea for us as well to have a light tank (Assault Gun) to supplement the small leopard fleet we have at a reduced cost.



FTFY.

Don't call it a tank.  If you call it a tank you will encourage its use as a tank.  While I like the idea of a lightly armoured, self-propelled gun, even a turreted or RWS gun, I accept that there is a qualitative difference between a tank like the LEO/Abrams/Challenger and the AGS/MGS/SPAG - principally in the ability of the latter to manoeuver in the face of enemy fire.


----------



## Loachman

Using the word "Assault" will generate opposition to the vehicle in today's political environment.

"Peacekeeping Support Vehicle" would give it a much better chance of acceptance and purchase.


----------



## Ostrozac

Loachman said:
			
		

> Using the word "Assault" will generate opposition to the vehicle in today's political environment.
> 
> "Peacekeeping Support Vehicle" would give it a much better chance of acceptance and purchase.



So I guess the "grass-chewing, diesel-burning, depleted uranium-shooting death machine" is right out of the question?


----------



## Loachman

You left out "first-strike-capability" and "stealth", so it might sneak past critics.


----------



## McG

As we contemplate, in this thread, buying a lighter tank-like vehicle to supplement Leopard 2, perhaps also reconsider this bit of wisdom:


			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> ... you could design a turretless AFV with a 120mm, but once again why do so when you could just make more tanks? Sights and associated fire controls are a huge part of the cost of an AFV, not to mention the costs of training the crews. If your choice was 200 Leopard 2A6Ms or 100 Leopard 2A6Ms and 100 Chimeras with turretless 120mm guns then what would your choice be?


Up front procurement savings will be lost to lifecycle costs of supporting mixed fleets.


----------

