The Wargamer | Militaria, Military Hardware & Tech Specs

Welcome Guest, please Login or Register!

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register or login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Topic: Rhinos go to war

Page 1

All Forums : [THE MILITARY ACADEMY] : Militaria, Military Hardware & Tech Specs > Rhinos go to war

#1 17 AUG 2006 at 5:36pm
bayonetbrant Colonel Posts : 7052 Joined: 18 MAR 2007 Status : Offline	Here's an interesting (albeit older) article from Carlton Meyer at G2Mil.com It advocates the use of lighter armored vehicles that can be quickly air-mobiled into place on the battlefield, and can carry some significant firepower with them. http://g2mil.com/tankitas.htm Check out GrogNews for wargaming / mil news. http://grognews.blogspot.com
Profile Search

#2 17 AUG 2006 at 8:26pm
MIGMaster Commander Posts : 2123 Joined: 4 MAY 2003 Status : Offline	Man, I really gotta wonder - I remember hearing this same argument about the Sheridan and then the M8 Buford. It makes sense in theory, but I wonder if it really ever prove itself to be a valid concept.[ ] LAV III's and armored Hummers seem to be far too vulnerable in any setting given the RPG threat, yet M1's are thought to be dinosaurs in urban environments and because of their relative lack of air mobility. Yet, despite this perception, you have all these testimonials about the use of heavier armor in urban Iraq being effective. I think the tank is a necessary dinosaur and the concept of a "Rhino" may be better left as that - a concept. Maybe bucks would be better spent on a variant of the SkyCrane/Hook that could airlift a MBT. What are you thoughts, Gentlemen ? "We like our women like our gaming - Hardcore !" LongBlade, circa 2008
Profile Search
#3 17 AUG 2006 at 8:47pm
bboyer66 Colonel Posts : 4709 Joined: 17 APR 2006 Location: US, Pittsburgh PA Status : Offline	I could not have said it better migmaster Pittsburgh Eats
Profile Search
#4 17 AUG 2006 at 10:50pm
bayonetbrant Colonel Posts : 7052 Joined: 18 MAR 2007 Status : Offline	ORIGINAL: MIGMaster Man, I really gotta wonder - I remember hearing this same argument about the Sheridan and then the M8 Buford. It makes sense in theory, but I wonder if it really ever prove itself to be a valid concept.[ ] Biggest problem with the Sheridan was the missile. The tank itself wasn't a problem, and was kept in inventory for over 30 years. Not bad, really. M8 was more funding decision than anything, tho the armor was a problem. For those that don't know, the M8 was s'posed to have bolt-on armor in multiple levels of protection, but was only air-droppable in "minimum armor" mode. The problem wasn't that it was a bad tank. It was designed for a way in which we don't fight anymore: airborne. And since the airborne insisted on having greater armor on it when it hit the ground, the Army whacked it rather than spend the money to re-engineer it. Now the 82d Lemming Division has, oh, [i]zero[/i] armor support when they hit the ground. Great call guys. ORIGINAL: MIGMaster LAV III's and armored Hummers seem to be far too vulnerable in any setting given the RPG threat, yet M1's are thought to be dinosaurs in urban environments and because of their relative lack of air mobility. Yet, despite this perception, you have all these testimonials about the use of heavier armor in urban Iraq being effective. Biggest strength the M1/Challenger seems to have in Iraq is deterrence. Haji doesn't take shots at tanks because he knows it's a bad idea. They don't move around too much, but are availabel to reinforce trouble spots. In the meantime, they are effective at intimidating people into leaving things alone. ORIGINAL: MIGMaster I think the tank is a necessary dinosaur and the concept of a "Rhino" may be better left as that - a concept. Maybe bucks would be better spent on a variant of the SkyCrane/Hook that could airlift a MBT. {shudder} No airlifting of my tank, thankyouverymuch. I just wonder if there isn't a better platform for moving a big gun around the battlefield than a HMMWV, or equivalent. The French ERC-90 seems to be pretty successful. Check out GrogNews for wargaming / mil news. http://grognews.blogspot.com
Profile Search
#5 18 AUG 2006 at 8:11am
MIGMaster Commander Posts : 2123 Joined: 4 MAY 2003 Status : Offline	You would think that the scenario would almost call for a man-portable solution given the dynamics of the environment. I think the ultimate solution lies in the future when technology will allow for much better and lighter armor. Something like powered battle armor - almost mech-like. I know that may sound crazy, but the concept of an air-droppable vehicle with a high survivability just can't be achieved with current tech. Of course, the ultimate solution may be some kind of locally controlled land-based drone - all amor and gun - the key may be to take people as operators out of the equation. "We like our women like our gaming - Hardcore !" LongBlade, circa 2008
Profile Search
#6 18 AUG 2006 at 8:50am
OrtonaCanuck Centurion Posts : 41 Joined: 9 JUN 2005 Status : Offline	What do you think of the Canadian response - The Mobile Gun System? The LAVs and Coyotees in Afghanistan seem to have vunerabilities. This looks like the same platform. Any operational anywhere? (http://www.armee.forces.ca/lf/English/5_4_1_4.asp?FlashEnabled=1&)
Profile Search
#7 25 AUG 2006 at 11:54am
Jointops06 Commander Posts : 2653 Joined: 20 JUL 2004 Status : Offline	Another article on this subject. http://www.combatreform.com/cavalry.htm That's one of the remarkable things about life. It's never so bad that it can't get worse. Then again quietly confident but what of? The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.
Profile Search
#8 25 AUG 2006 at 12:40pm
marvingard Commander Posts : 2826 Joined: 13 APR 2007 Location: 0 Status : Offline	WWTID... What would the Israelis do? They seem to be ahead of us in developing tactical concepts for the exact kinds of wars we will be fighting in the future. Do they have anything that affirms this idea of a light/air mobile infantry fighting vehicle? I would have thought that the Sinai would have taught them the value of this concept.
Profile Search
#9 25 AUG 2006 at 2:31pm
Besilarius Commander Posts : 1543 Joined: 14 NOV 2003 Status : Offline	There have been alot of discussions about the need for gunfire support for the marines. Now, to anyone who looks up out of the sand, it seems clear that over the beach type landings are no longer necessary. With all the air and helo support, vertical envelopment is the present and future conceptual framework. However, there is still that nasty problem of no heavy cannon support. It only gets worse, the farther inland you go. Some well read beardless boy, happened to read about the RailRoad guns of World War I. The Navy operated about a dozen 14" cannons. Being mounted on railroad cars, they could easily be transported to support any attack. Well, the theory went, if we could airtransport some 14" cannons to a forward LZ, that would give the jarheads all the heavy artillery support they could ever desire. Sounded great, but among all the little problems was that there is no experienced factory to produce such behemoths anymore. After the turret explosion on New Jersey, the Navy is hesitant to get into it, and the helicopter support for a battery of such guns would be exorbitant. Some thought was given to taking off the guns of the Texas, but no barrel liners are left, nor is there any thought to produce more. The 16" rifles of the Iowas and South Dakotas were a possibility, but the weight is considerably more. On the East Coast, up until about 1965, the Navy had the ability to make liners at the Washington Navy Yard. Unfortunately, the "pit" was too exposed and a drunken sailor supposedly nearly ran a volkswagen into it. Shortly afterward, it was filled in with concrete. "When I must choose an officer to perform an act that requires a good brain, everything else being equal, I choose the one with the biggest nose." - Napoleon "If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything." - the Duke of Wellington
Profile Search
#10 25 AUG 2006 at 2:51pm
marvingard Commander Posts : 2826 Joined: 13 APR 2007 Location: 0 Status : Offline	At the SMD conference in Huntsville they were showing videos of the "rod from god" concept of orbitally deployed kinetic weapons. Its no joke either when a Lt. General, a Mjr. General and a Brigadier were attending the premier event of space-based weapon systems. Give it 15+ years and the Marines will have their heavy fire support.
Profile Search
#11 25 AUG 2006 at 3:27pm
Qualm Centurion Posts : 395 Joined: 17 JUL 2005 Status : Offline	Um, there already is a Rhino armored gun platform http://www.enemyforces.com/artillery/g6rhino.htm
Profile Search

#12 25 AUG 2006 at 4:09pm
GDS Starfury General Posts : 16394 Joined: 26 MAY 2001 Location: 0, Starbase 10 Status : Offline	the Stryker brigade seems to be doing well in action with a pretty good survivability against all threats except IED's. yet M1's are thought to be dinosaurs in urban environments and because of their relative lack of air mobility. Yet, despite this perception, you have all these testimonials about the use of heavier armor in urban Iraq being effective. its effective because of tactics. no M1 is sent out by itself without infantry and air support. Do they have anything that affirms this idea of a light/air mobile infantry fighting vehicle? they dont need an air transportable armored vehicle. all their threats are within the reach of their tanks fuel range. I would have thought that the Sinai would have taught them the value of this concept. the Sinai taught them to not fight with only armor. the losses they took in 73 were mostly due to a lack of a infantry screen in front of their tanks. it was very much a WW2 British mistake that you would think had been studied at the time.
Profile Search
#13 25 AUG 2006 at 4:21pm
johnusds1973 Centurion Posts : 205 Joined: 26 NOV 2010 Location: 0 Status : Online	The South Africans have a pretty mobile force (Rookiat's Ratels), and I think their force structure deserves consideration when developing OOB's for desert type environments. Personally having served in a Cav unit, I see a problem with the lack of flexibility in our units. Instead of creating CAV reg style units with a mix of both Stryker and M-1 type platforms, we are relegating ourselves to creating seperate units, then creating TF's to make up for it. I think in Iraq, especially the urban areas RECCE type units whereas you have say 4 M-1's and 8 Strykers (or perhaps some 105mm gun platforms) plus various smaller armored recon vehicles would work better. Off the top of my head I cant think of a smaller wheeled vehicle that would fit that bill, but perhaps something along the lines of the old British FOX recon vehicle? I absolutely believe that getting rid of the M-1's totally is a terrible idea. Obviously Bradley's and M-1's operating together in Bagdad dont allow for a lot of speedy manuever. And If my memory of driving the Bradley is still good, it's LOUD, it couldnt sneak up on a deaf insurgent.
Profile Search
#14 25 AUG 2006 at 4:30pm
bayonetbrant Colonel Posts : 7052 Joined: 18 MAR 2007 Status : Offline	ORIGINAL: Qualm Um, there already is a Rhino armored gun platform http://www.enemyforces.com/artillery/g6rhino.htm Who gives a rat's patootie what you call the damn thing? Is the nickname that important? The issue isn't that there's a gun with the name "Rhino" on it. It's that there's a concept of using lightwieght armored gun carriers to do vertical envelopments. Meyer used the nickname "rhino." Where'd he get it? Who knows? Who cares? The name of the system is the least relevant part of this discussion. Check out GrogNews for wargaming / mil news. http://grognews.blogspot.com
Profile Search
#15 25 AUG 2006 at 4:34pm
bayonetbrant Colonel Posts : 7052 Joined: 18 MAR 2007 Status : Offline	ORIGINAL: Besilarius Well, the theory went, if we could airtransport some 14" cannons to a forward LZ, that would give the jarheads all the heavy artillery support they could ever desire. Yeah, but the Marines don't have the ability to haul that much ammo. If you airlift in a 14" gun, how many shells can you fit on the bird with it? 2? 14" shells aren't small. A Chinook might be able to carry about 4-6, maybe 8 if slingloaded. Even so, the Marines don't have the ammo-handling infrastructure to cope with something like that. You'd still need an Army corps-level ordnance company to move it around for you. And if you're going to get the Army involved anyway, just bring in some HIMARS trucks at that point; they'd be easier to support than a 14" gun. [sm=crazy.gif]Good thing [i]that[/i] idea went away... Check out GrogNews for wargaming / mil news. http://grognews.blogspot.com
Profile Search
#16 27 AUG 2006 at 11:39am
Besilarius Commander Posts : 1543 Joined: 14 NOV 2003 Status : Offline	Brant, you are absolutely right, and the idea died deserved death. It was just one attempt to think outside the box. Actually after going over some notes, I see that one suggestion was to actually utilise the very short Take off and Landing ability of the C5 Galaxy to transport ammo and spares. Neat concept but ties up too much support elements. "When I must choose an officer to perform an act that requires a good brain, everything else being equal, I choose the one with the biggest nose." - Napoleon "If you'll believe that, you'll believe anything." - the Duke of Wellington
Profile Search
#17 28 AUG 2006 at 9:33pm
PHGamer Centurion Posts : 5 Joined: 28 AUG 2006 Status : Online	The French adopted this idea for the last half a century. Armor sacrificed for speed. By the time Desert Storm occured, everyone knew their tanks would pop like popcorn in a modern battlefield, and so they were religated to a support role. Phil G
Profile Search
#18 28 AUG 2006 at 9:44pm
PHGamer Centurion Posts : 5 Joined: 28 AUG 2006 Status : Online	14" land gun? There is a reason why 150mm is about the maximum sized practical artillery piece, and that is the ultimate limit of the human endurance. The shell of a 150mm weigh about 90 pounds. And despite automation, eventually there is a point where muscle is involved. Phil G
Profile Search

All Forums : [THE MILITARY ACADEMY] : Militaria, Military Hardware & Tech Specs > Rhinos go to war

Page 1

Jump to:

0 Members Subscribed To This Topic

Topic: Rhinos go to war

bayonetbrant

MIGMaster

bboyer66

bayonetbrant

MIGMaster

OrtonaCanuck

Jointops06

marvingard

Besilarius

marvingard

Qualm

GDS Starfury

johnusds1973

bayonetbrant

bayonetbrant

Besilarius

PHGamer

PHGamer