Role of Armour on the new front
- Thread starter Recce41
- Start date
P
Paul F
Guest
I personally don‘t see any role for remote controlled tanks on the battlefield in the future. They would be too easy for the enemy to intercept. All the enemy would have to do is overload the receiver and the tank(s) would be dead in their tracks because they wouldn‘t be able to receive any commands from headquarters.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,211
- Points
- 1,160
If infantry gets Power-Suits with jet packs and bomb racks on the back, then they are going to be backed up with some really nasty tanks.
When you consider that most of the major threats to the tank right now is RPG's, ATGM and other tanks. Most of which were produced in the cold war and all have a short lifespan, I expect that in 10 years most of the currents threats will be duds. The newer ATGM's and RPG's that can deal with a modern MBT will be to expensive for most combatants and the majority of insurgents will be armed with lesser generation weapons when and if they can get them.
The Major source of these modern anti-armour weapons is Russia and China, both of these countries need hard cash and will not be giving away weapons the way they used to, especially when the price per item continues to climb. I foresee a battle field where the modern MBT has few viable threats and will continue to be a factor for a long time. The technology for whiz-bang lasers/death rays/rail guns is to far off for portable & affordable weapon systems.
When you consider that most of the major threats to the tank right now is RPG's, ATGM and other tanks. Most of which were produced in the cold war and all have a short lifespan, I expect that in 10 years most of the currents threats will be duds. The newer ATGM's and RPG's that can deal with a modern MBT will be to expensive for most combatants and the majority of insurgents will be armed with lesser generation weapons when and if they can get them.
The Major source of these modern anti-armour weapons is Russia and China, both of these countries need hard cash and will not be giving away weapons the way they used to, especially when the price per item continues to climb. I foresee a battle field where the modern MBT has few viable threats and will continue to be a factor for a long time. The technology for whiz-bang lasers/death rays/rail guns is to far off for portable & affordable weapon systems.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
One could argue that one infantry soldier with a decent satcom radio, laser designator, and proper training working in conjunction with an arty battery and aircraft properly equipped with air to ground armaments has the same shock and firepower effect as a tank with far lower acoustic, thermal, and visual signatures. Certainly far more equipment involved, but that one infantry fireteam would be working in the same combined arms scenario as a tank squadron. No knock on the blackhats, just a thought.
And I think Infanteer is right that 50-100 years from now, the whole infantry/armoured concept will be merged as one, with the tanks becoming powered suits like in Heinlen‘s vision for ST. Combine the mobility/stealth/numbers aspects of bulletcatchers with the shock and firepower of the zipperheads.
And I think Infanteer is right that 50-100 years from now, the whole infantry/armoured concept will be merged as one, with the tanks becoming powered suits like in Heinlen‘s vision for ST. Combine the mobility/stealth/numbers aspects of bulletcatchers with the shock and firepower of the zipperheads.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Not to knock your opinion too much, but doesn‘t a grunt already carry too much kit on patrol. The advantage of Armour is that they can carry all that extra (heavy) kit and such. Also, one of the main principals of Armour, besides Mobility, Firepower, Shock Action, etc. is GOOD COMMS. Most Armour vehicles are operating on two nets, sometimes three. Once an Infantry section starts doing all this, your section becomes the size of a platoon, and the kit you‘ll carry will slow you down considerably.
You may not have to wait 50 - 100 years. There is talk now and for the past few years of taking all the LAVs and Coyotes away from the Infantry and making the Armour Corps the "Bus Drivers" and Crew commanders and Gunners.
GW
You may not have to wait 50 - 100 years. There is talk now and for the past few years of taking all the LAVs and Coyotes away from the Infantry and making the Armour Corps the "Bus Drivers" and Crew commanders and Gunners.
GW
Marauder,
The concept of a laser riding missile is a great one, and works almost all the time. I say almost because on days that are foggy or low overcast, nothing moves. There‘s also the aspect of local air superiority to consider, although that‘s almost laughable nowadays with the size and expertise of the USAF.
A tank will bring fire to bear anytime, anywhere. A commander adds air power to his fireplan, but does not base his plan on air power- you just never know for sure that it will show up....and those are NOT betting odds!
Cheers-Garry
The concept of a laser riding missile is a great one, and works almost all the time. I say almost because on days that are foggy or low overcast, nothing moves. There‘s also the aspect of local air superiority to consider, although that‘s almost laughable nowadays with the size and expertise of the USAF.
A tank will bring fire to bear anytime, anywhere. A commander adds air power to his fireplan, but does not base his plan on air power- you just never know for sure that it will show up....and those are NOT betting odds!
Cheers-Garry
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Depends on what techknowledgie(I‘m a crappy speller) we have in the future.
Like Sherwood said may be all robotic but yes we will need mobile big gun‘s unless laser Tech advance‘s to the point of making large calibre gun‘s are no longer needed.
My own opinion is stay with the tried and proven untill some thing better come‘s along.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Will the retirement more or less of the tank, and the adoption of the MGS, combined with the restricted role the Coyote has, mean the death knell for the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps?
The MGS is not a tank and never will fill the role of a tank. It is a 'stand off' AFV that will likely be best suited in the role of Assault Gun or Tank Destroyer, not a vehicle that will provide close, intimate support to Infantry.
The Coyote, with it's good road worthiness and excellent surveillance suite is a great tool in the Surv role, but is not a Recce vehicle. It is in fact poorly designed to be used as a Recce vehicle.
With the traditional roles of Armour now gone, does this mean that the Corps is effectively dead? If the Corps is dead, does it signify the death also of the Combat Team and therefore the whole Canadian Army? In warfare of the future, will these loses be significant, or will we have to relearn and redevelope these roles at great cost of lives and materials?
GW
The MGS is not a tank and never will fill the role of a tank. It is a 'stand off' AFV that will likely be best suited in the role of Assault Gun or Tank Destroyer, not a vehicle that will provide close, intimate support to Infantry.
The Coyote, with it's good road worthiness and excellent surveillance suite is a great tool in the Surv role, but is not a Recce vehicle. It is in fact poorly designed to be used as a Recce vehicle.
With the traditional roles of Armour now gone, does this mean that the Corps is effectively dead? If the Corps is dead, does it signify the death also of the Combat Team and therefore the whole Canadian Army? In warfare of the future, will these loses be significant, or will we have to relearn and redevelope these roles at great cost of lives and materials?
GW
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
George, you ask some very relavant question that do need to be addressed to maintain a sense of relevance and value within the black hat community as part of the Army. I do know there is considerable work being done to re-evaluate the integration of our combat arms without heavy tracks (Leo or M109). I don‘t quite think it‘s time to hang up your spurs.
As an aside, and in no way to take away from the importance of your remarks, is it not similar to the feelings that existed when the cavalry was losing its horses and being expected to embrace stinky, dirty mechanical machines - those very machines that have defined the Armour for the past 80+ years. We cannot always control the changes imposed upon us, but we can always contribute to preserving our sense of identity through change.
Mike
As an aside, and in no way to take away from the importance of your remarks, is it not similar to the feelings that existed when the cavalry was losing its horses and being expected to embrace stinky, dirty mechanical machines - those very machines that have defined the Armour for the past 80+ years. We cannot always control the changes imposed upon us, but we can always contribute to preserving our sense of identity through change.
Mike
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
The changes from Cavalry to modern Armour were gradual and showed an evolution over a period of ten to twenty years, hastened by the outbreak of WW II. In the twenties, Cavalry troops were carrying flags to denote MG troops and such on exercises. All a developement of lessons learned in WW I with the creation of the MG Brigades and the Tank. In the Thirties, cars, trucks, motorcycles and armoured cars were being employed alongside the horse mounted troops. WW II saw the demise of the horse on most fronts, the exceptions being the Cavalry units of Poland, and a few other Eastern European armies, who were descimated by the Germans. Alpine troops kept pack horses and some still exist in modern armies today, but after WW II, the horse was pretty well gone as an active participant on the battlefield.
Today we are not seeing that ‘gradual‘ change. It is more often "overnight" that we are seeing changes being made now and getting faster every day. I am still waiting the day that every soldier gets a Palm Pilot with Bluetooth technology and has all his orders and tasks emailed him prior to, or in lieu of, his reporting in to work.
GW
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
George your right, the Coyote is not a good Recce veh, but better for surveillance. Recce is not dead in the Corps if you take into account all the Reserve Armour Regiments. We have had "Mud Recce" as a role for some time, and the Cougar units are converting to the same. Now, I know you‘ll probably pull the "Reserves can‘t deploy en masse when needed" gambit. I‘m just saying it still exists as a role in the Corps. With the proper equipment, a defined doctrine (which is being worked on), integration into the surv troops on ex, etc, it‘s a step. And with ALL Reserve armour doing recce, I‘m sure we could give you a combined troop per Sqn for deployment. It‘s a good role for us, reasonably cheap, easy to learn and we can train in our home locations for the most part. Although, I think when the Regs see our LUVW Command & Recce variant, we‘ll probably lose those like we did the Bison and all the other high speed kit that was slated for Reserve use. Total Force will rear it‘s ugly head and we‘ll be doing recce in pickups 
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Therein lies the rub. The new LUVW that you are getting is a commercial pattern truck with a cab. You can‘t really do Recce inside a cab. You have to use those finely tune instruments Mother Nature gave you--your eyes and ears, and you can‘t do that inside a truck.
GW
GW
- Reaction score
- 5,692
- Points
- 1,060
George,
LUVW and MILCOTS are two different things to replace the Iltis. Most Reserve units will have their Iltis replaced with MILCOTS - Military Commercial Off The Shelf, GM Pickup , commonly called Milverados. The Reserve Armoured Recce units will retain some Iltis and have the rest (about 9 or 10) replaced with the LUVW G Wagon Command and Recce variant. This has a cupola ring that can mount the MG‘s, M19 or the (Spike?) AT missle. This is the promise, but, like the Bison...well we‘ll wait and see.
LUVW and MILCOTS are two different things to replace the Iltis. Most Reserve units will have their Iltis replaced with MILCOTS - Military Commercial Off The Shelf, GM Pickup , commonly called Milverados. The Reserve Armoured Recce units will retain some Iltis and have the rest (about 9 or 10) replaced with the LUVW G Wagon Command and Recce variant. This has a cupola ring that can mount the MG‘s, M19 or the (Spike?) AT missle. This is the promise, but, like the Bison...well we‘ll wait and see.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Actually, I was under the impression that the few G Wagons, of all three variants, were all going to Reg Force units. There are, what.... 60 some of the C&R variant being produced? Not enough to do the Reg Force. Like everything else this Government has done, it is Half As.. Half the number of MGS to replace the tanks. Half (really much less than half) the G-wagons to replace the Iltis. Same thing happened with the MLVW that replaced the 2 1/2 tons, the Leopards that replaced the Centurions, etc.
Coffee Break....
GW
Coffee Break....
GW
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,314
- Points
- 1,040
Mike O‘L pretty much summed up my view. The tools are changing, but the essential roles are nearly the same in 2004 as they were in 1904, 1804, 1704, etc - recce, shock action, raids. Along the history track a line blurred and the gunners handed over direct fire support to the cavalry (tanks). Now we are seeing another line blur between the traditional manoeuvre arms (cavalry and infantry) as the infantry picks up more and more DFS capability. Will they take it over entirely? Hard to foresee.
Too often in our penny-pinched obsession with tanks we overlook the other thing that should mostly fall under the cavalry umbrella - aviation. The Corps isn‘t dead without tools; it‘ll only be dead if the ideas are completely lost.
Too often in our penny-pinched obsession with tanks we overlook the other thing that should mostly fall under the cavalry umbrella - aviation. The Corps isn‘t dead without tools; it‘ll only be dead if the ideas are completely lost.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
On that note Brad, the RCD lost their Helicopter Troop in the 1970‘s when a Force Restructure changed them from an Army to an Air Force asset. In Afghanistan today we have UABs, but it is the Arty who are controlling them at the moment. I can see with ISTAR a lot of these assets switching over to Armour Recce, to include not only UABs, but EW and some indirect fire capabilities. Only time and money will tell.
GW
GW
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Personally, I think that the true "recce" capability went the way of the Dodo when they canned the light track fleet (Lynx, 113 ect.) The Coyote is a good vehicle but doen not have the proper equipment to conduct offensively based recce operations and taskings.
My 2 cents.
Slim
My 2 cents.
Slim
Brad,
You have my vote for "Best post".
I stayed out of the debate as I‘m Ex, vice current armoured, but have to strongly agrre.
The Corps has nothing to do with the tools, and everything to do with the people, ideas, personalities, and morals of those who make up the Regiments.
Our people have always been our strongest assets, and will continue to do so.
There‘s an old saying: "better to have a lion at the head of a thousand sheep, than to have a sheep at the head of a thousand lions".
I‘ll paraphrase and say "better to have a thousand lions poorly armed, than a thousand sheep well armed".
Of course, a thousand lions in M-1‘s would be awesome..
Cheers-Garry
You have my vote for "Best post".
I stayed out of the debate as I‘m Ex, vice current armoured, but have to strongly agrre.
The Corps has nothing to do with the tools, and everything to do with the people, ideas, personalities, and morals of those who make up the Regiments.
Our people have always been our strongest assets, and will continue to do so.
There‘s an old saying: "better to have a lion at the head of a thousand sheep, than to have a sheep at the head of a thousand lions".
I‘ll paraphrase and say "better to have a thousand lions poorly armed, than a thousand sheep well armed".
Of course, a thousand lions in M-1‘s would be awesome..
Cheers-Garry
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
A most intertesting discussion. Any time there is a new type of equipment, a new (forecast) government on the horizon, or indeed a new generation of soldiers maturing into command and control levels of any military organization, there will always be the bug bear of progress...RTC...RESISTANCE TO CHANGE. From Sherman to Centurion to Leopard, from equine to motorcycle to jeep, to Staghound, to Ferret, to Lynx, to bicycle to foot to whatever,... I think you follow here. Someone, in fact most current serving folks will almost certainly have a resistance to being redifined, re-roled, re-employed in a different environment. Changes in government mean changes in day to day doctrine and policy, it goes on and on. As a 33 year Armour vet, I would very much regret the demise of the Corps as I have experienced it, both first hand and second hand as a parent of an Armour officer, and as an interested observer. Life will go on, just maybe not as we know it now. Armour will survive to a greater or lesser degree than it is now. :tank:
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
As we can see from the experienced posters here, the Corps has gone through many changes in the last hundred years. Changes are coming faster and faster as science and technology advances quicken daily. The question is whether or not the Armour Corps will really survive as a Corps or become a ‘watered down‘ version? Will they become ‘assimilated‘ by the Infantry? Will all the Branches be assimilated into a new ‘organization‘ under the ISTAR way of thinking? The questions are endless, as are the possibilities.
GW
GW
Similar threads
