Urban Battle Tank - Page 3




 
--
 
April 14th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
Oh I agree on multiple configurations. A Modular design with a quick disconnect for weapons systems would be ideal. Kinda like switching uppers on an AR15?
The general concesus, I think, is that whatever vehicle it is, it should be smaller, more heavily armoured than and abrahms that moves faster and carrie AA as well as AT and AP weapons. Hmmmm sounds like a miracle to me. Fact is, there is no ideal weapon that would suit every need of every action.
IMO (and I know I'm biased and I keep going on about it) the Ratel or Caspirr will still do best in urban combat. They are mine/IED resistant, can take a beating and the are relatively fast. With the turreted Ratel90, you have a 90mm gun that can take out armor and buildings alike. Or take a regular ratel and mount 2 50's on it. I know the Caspirr has an small turret at the rear as well, in addition to the MG turret up front.
April 26th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushpig1998
Oh I agree on multiple configurations. A Modular design with a quick disconnect for weapons systems would be ideal. Kinda like switching uppers on an AR15?
The general concesus, I think, is that whatever vehicle it is, it should be smaller, more heavily armoured than and abrahms that moves faster and carrie AA as well as AT and AP weapons. Hmmmm sounds like a miracle to me. Fact is, there is no ideal weapon that would suit every need of every action.
Well, ideally you'd send them in groups if the circumstances meritted it, in which case you could bring every configuration that could possibly be needed for the mission. Until they make AA and AP rocket based systems much more compact without losing effectiveness, the all-in-one vehicle will remain something that we can only dream of.
Quote:
IMO (and I know I'm biased and I keep going on about it) the Ratel or Caspirr will still do best in urban combat. They are mine/IED resistant, can take a beating and the are relatively fast. With the turreted Ratel90, you have a 90mm gun that can take out armor and buildings alike. Or take a regular ratel and mount 2 50's on it. I know the Caspirr has an small turret at the rear as well, in addition to the MG turret up front.
Ratel looks solid for most things. I think that the developers of the Stryker should take a look at the Ratel and borrow some ideas. I'm curious, isn't the Ratel an APC?

A good flame thrower has tremendous potential. Then again, it could be a PR nightmare if used on civilians.
April 28th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
You are correct in both statements, the dream machine would always be just that and the Ratel is an APC.

Despite this fact, the ratel still managed quite well as a "light tank" or assault vehicle. The firing ports on the side, turn the ratel into a por can't approach t from any side! The 90mm gun on the ratel 90 is sufficient to take out buildings and almost any armor except the latest MBT's. If I had to fight in a situation where IED's were going off left and right, I would take the ratel. BTW, its armor will also stop pretty much anything up to .50. Once a .50 or 14.5 starts chattering, the crew inside gets antsy.
Here is an article of interest:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...692318,00.html

it is not a ratel, but more or less the same idea.
--
May 1st, 2005  
thegrinch073
 
 
Now my idea for a good urban mbt would be this:
-Rather small chasis with wheels to not tear up the roads
-25mm bushwhacker gun (with coaxial M240) on a fast moving turrent
M240 on turrent for antiair and anti window fire.
-Possibly piggyback the M240 on a MK19 grenade launcher for suppresion and to lauch CS gas, smoke, and other assorted goodies.
-Tow Launcher similar to the Bradley
-Armor would be strong enough for anti rpg and IED
-Crew of three or four, Driver, Gunner, Commander, Second gunner for the grenade launcher/M240
-60mm smoke canisters
-Speeds up to 60 mph to move quickly in and out of situations
-Possibly sloped armor on the front to plow through road blocks
-Amphibious but most likely unpossible.
May 5th, 2005  
Jack_Mordino
 
 
A tank designed for urban fighting would have to face multiple threats from different directions, ability to withstand hits by shoulder launched AT rockets all round, ability to target and neutralize snipers and other concealed personnel, ability to support friendly infantry, some ability to kill enemy AFV's and perhaps MBT's So here's the list:

Extra - Heavy armor all round. Might be ultra-heavy but great mobility isn't needed in urban areas. Adequate anti-mine protection would be useful too.

Many machineguns, positioned all around the tank for multi-direction suppression and defence capabilities.

A 30mm gun + a sniper locating device (such devics do exist, they radar-trace the shots) for neutralization of enemy snipers (with the 30mm wether you hit the sniper or the wall he is hiding behind, it's the same thing). Israelis used the 20mm Vulcan gun on M163's for this role, which is not to be forgotten in urban areas.

A grenade launcher for supporting friendly infantry.

Some medium or short range heavy AT missiles or rockets.
May 18th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
I saw something on Military channel last night that made me think of this thread...
The simple fact of the matter is that to make something a little more RPG resistant than a hummer, will cause the vehicle to be immensely heavy and almost unbearably large. No vehicle except a tank will give you "enough" protection against RPG's. The best idea I could think of was something like the Ferret, Lynx, Dingo (not the Aussie one). In fact the Canadian Ford Lynx would kick some real tail in urban combat with something larger than a .50 on it.
May 19th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack_Mordino
A tank designed for urban fighting would have to face multiple threats from different directions, ability to withstand hits by shoulder launched AT rockets all round, ability to target and neutralize snipers and other concealed personnel, ability to support friendly infantry, some ability to kill enemy AFV's and perhaps MBT's So here's the list:

Extra - Heavy armor all round. Might be ultra-heavy but great mobility isn't needed in urban areas. Adequate anti-mine protection would be useful too.

Many machineguns, positioned all around the tank for multi-direction suppression and defence capabilities.

A 30mm gun + a sniper locating device (such devics do exist, they radar-trace the shots) for neutralization of enemy snipers (with the 30mm wether you hit the sniper or the wall he is hiding behind, it's the same thing). Israelis used the 20mm Vulcan gun on M163's for this role, which is not to be forgotten in urban areas.

A grenade launcher for supporting friendly infantry.

Some medium or short range heavy AT missiles or rockets.


May 19th, 2005  
bushpig1998
 
 
Adam Seaman, I agree, tracks have better distribution of pressure, but that is not the be all and end all of armored vehicles. Wheels have a few major advantages...especially in a 6 wheel machine...

1. Economy - cheaper to manufacture and better milage
2. Range - see 1 on economy
3. Quiet - ever been close to a tank trying to sneak around corners?
4. Maintenance - when a track gets blow off in urban combat, you are up the creek with no paddles or boat! With wheels, you can still limp home or do a fast repair. Also, spare wheels can be kept in key positions to give a sort of spaced armor effect.
5. Speed. Tracked vehicles tend to be slower than wheeled vehicles.

For a good example of a situation where wheeled vehicles were better suited than tracked vehicles, look up South Africa's war in Angola against the Cubans. AFV's with low pressure 80mm guns took out the Cuban tanks with ease...the Ratels actually moved faster than the soviet built tanks could rotate their turrets. They also managed to do long range counter insurgency work in the bush - against infantry - with GREAT success and very few losses.

For urban or desert/savannah/long range combat, wheels are the way to go. IMO, tracks are best suited for the European type conflicts where the weather causes major problems. In most other places, midle east, Africa, South Americas and to some extent Asia, wheeled vehicles are better.
As for Urban combat, a wheeled vehicle offers more versatility in a lighter, smaller package that is cheaper to maintain, operate and manufacture. I do agree with your weapons layout. A 40mm GL would definitely be a tremendous asset in urban conflict. Meybe have a coaxially mouted 7.62 MG with that GL? The 25mm Cannon is great. It can take out most light armor in the current conflicts we are involved in and offers great range/knocking power. Brick walls shouldn't be a problem witht hat puppy! The only alternative I can think of for the 25mm is the main gun from the apache. It is lighter than a vulcan, but offers one heck of a ROF and should scare the living daylights out of the guys on the receiving side.
May 21st, 2005  
FRO
 
There was an interesting discussion some time ago regardning what to do with Canada's C2 Leopard MBTs. During this time, a good article showed up on Canadian-American Strategic Review. It has some thoughts about turning the C2 into an "urban tank."

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-fisher1-1.htm
May 23rd, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bushpig1998
Adam Seaman, I agree, tracks have better distribution of pressure, but that is not the be all and end all of armored vehicles. Wheels have a few major advantages...especially in a 6 wheel machine...

1. Economy - cheaper to manufacture and better milage
2. Range - see 1 on economy
3. Quiet - ever been close to a tank trying to sneak around corners?
4. Maintenance - when a track gets blow off in urban combat, you are up the creek with no paddles or boat! With wheels, you can still limp home or do a fast repair. Also, spare wheels can be kept in key positions to give a sort of spaced armor effect.
5. Speed. Tracked vehicles tend to be slower than wheeled vehicles.

For a good example of a situation where wheeled vehicles were better suited than tracked vehicles, look up South Africa's war in Angola against the Cubans. AFV's with low pressure 80mm guns took out the Cuban tanks with ease...the Ratels actually moved faster than the soviet built tanks could rotate their turrets. They also managed to do long range counter insurgency work in the bush - against infantry - with GREAT success and very few losses.

For urban or desert/savannah/long range combat, wheels are the way to go. IMO, tracks are best suited for the European type conflicts where the weather causes major problems. In most other places, midle east, Africa, South Americas and to some extent Asia, wheeled vehicles are better.
As for Urban combat, a wheeled vehicle offers more versatility in a lighter, smaller package that is cheaper to maintain, operate and manufacture. I do agree with your weapons layout. A 40mm GL would definitely be a tremendous asset in urban conflict. Meybe have a coaxially mouted 7.62 MG with that GL? The 25mm Cannon is great. It can take out most light armor in the current conflicts we are involved in and offers great range/knocking power. Brick walls shouldn't be a problem witht hat puppy! The only alternative I can think of for the 25mm is the main gun from the apache. It is lighter than a vulcan, but offers one heck of a ROF and should scare the living daylights out of the guys on the receiving side.

Yes I agree that wheel would be better, but in order to have a vehicle that is RPG resistant it most have a tanks armor, wheels are a problem with add-on and oversized armor.