self propelled AT guns and assault guns today

Should Romania look at them as an alternative to tanks? It's more affordable and can be just as deadly as a tank. I read that German StuG's were credited with the highest number of kills in WW2. And it wouldn't be Romania's first experience with local produced assault guns (Maresal).

Picture of Swedish Strv 103. It's not the most recent assault gun, but during the Cold War it offered decent protection and a good gun. The recent D upgrade has excellent FCS and thermal imaging.


http://www.sg.hu/kep/2005_01/sg4_5.jpg

This post has been edited by deadmanwalking on July 18, 2006 12:41 pm

STRV-103 was a tank not tank destroyer.
Anyway modern Tank destroyer are the antitank missiles squad. which are more mobile than a tank destroyer will ever be.

anti tank missiles aren't all that useful... most modern tanks have a lot of protection against chemical energy (the HEAT warheads of the AT missiles fall in this category). For example, Ukraine's (our neighbour!) T-84 has enough protection to resist to 1,060mm CE on the front turret and 1,000mm CE on the front hull! The best portable ATGM we have is AT-4 or AT-5... in any case they are not a threat. AT-4 's warhead can penetrate at best 400mm and AT-5 maybe 600mm (which I'm not even sure we have!). Even the Spike anti tank missile won't do... and let's not even talk about the T-84's countermeasures that can kill the missile before it even touches it... for this reasons I still think SABOT is the way to go. To be fair I compared one of our neighbour's tank. I could have mentioned M1A2 or Merkava4 which have something like 1,500mm protection against CE. Even the best antitank missile in the world (Hellfire) might have problems defeating these tanks (unless it's fired from an AH64 and it hits the top of course). On the other hand, a well placed SABOT can destroy them from the FRONT. The 120mm gun of the Ukrainian T-84 Oplot could for example.

I don't get the mobility part though. Can you explain?

Call the STRV 103 what you want.. a tank, a T/D, a bird.. but it's still a turretless tank very similiar to the old Hetzer and StuG and this is what I meant.

This post has been edited by deadmanwalking on July 19, 2006 08:19 am

You need roads to move them fast. Or trains. On the other hand, you call in a chopper load the AT squad and deploy it fast from one point to another. I think that was what he meant.

I see. But some tanks can be made light enough to be air transportable too. The British have several airborne tanks like FV101 Scorpion. And normally tank destroyers are very fast. In WW2 M18 Hellcat (which held impressive combat records btw) was the fastest vehicule of the war capable of reaching 80 km/hour on roads.. speaking of mobility

all you need is a good engine

a couple of airborne tanks around the world

FV101 Scorpion (England)


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/scorpion-ie.jpg

AMX-13 (France)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...13-latrun-2.jpg

This post has been edited by deadmanwalking on July 19, 2006 10:23 am

But you won't have the same firepower (as the Strv 103) or the same stealth (as an AT squad) do you?

stealthy or not, like I wrote in my second post HEAT warheads are not efficient against modern tanks. and firepower is not really an issue. french amx-13 can carry 105mm gun (bigger gun than our TR-85 M1) and given the proper munition it can perform just as good as the 120mm equipped on the M1A2, Leopard 2A6 or T-84 Oplot

I still think a small, fast, turretless tank with decent armour protection and 105mm gun or even 90mm is the way to go... Romania for sure can afford it as a replacement for TR-85.

This post has been edited by deadmanwalking on July 19, 2006 10:53 am

First of those numbers about T-84 are way off. The Oplot is just a prototype.

Anyway you have a better chance to kill a tank with AT missiles than with a Tankdestoryer.. TD are quite a big target.

HEAT warheads evolved into tandem warheads... bigger bang

Tandem warhead doesn't mean a bigger bang, just two bangs set appart (first one ignites the target's ERA, if any).

bigger bang.. was metaphore

T-84 has been in service since 1999... and it's the same as the Oplot in terms of armour protection. But how are my numbers way off? Here's another source that puts the T-84's armour protection against HEAT between 1250 and 1600mm on the turret and between 960 and 1040mm on the glacis. On the other hand, between 850 and 1100mm against SABOT on the turret and between 680 and 720mm on the glacis. And there are so many ways to defeat an incoming ATGM... if the crew is skilled enough and the tank has decent mobility, maybe it can use the laser warning receivers in conjugation with smoke dischargers to break the line of sight between the tank and the person pointing the launcher at it and then evade it. Let's not even talk about real APS... some T-80 have Shtora AND Arena APS... probably the missile won't even touch it.... on the other hand how do you plan to stop a projectile of the densest metal travelling at Mach 5 towards you you won't even have time to blink

with a decent crew, decent optics, decent fire control system and decent gun/ammo, a tank (turretless or not) will have more chances to destroy another tank than any AT missile will ever have. And not only are ATGM's inefficient today (because most modern tanks use Chobham-like armour) but the troops don't have unlimited missiles... at most they will carry 4 and if all 4 miss or are destroyed or deviated by an APS like Shtora... what will you do then? not to mention the team is also vulnerable to all kinds of artillery... Also they are not sufficiently strong..... you will need a Hellfire and luck to destroy M1A2, T-84, T-80UM1 BARS, CHALLENGER 2, LEOPARD 2, MERKAVA MK 4, ETC.

and TD's are not bigger targets... they're smaller than tanks... remember the Maresal was probably the smallest AFV in WW2 and carried one of the best guns

My take: assault gun era is over. They became obsolete when precise,extremely mobile , fast rocket launcher(s) became operational. And that may include AT squads,don't know. But that's just me. And I don't think the fact that AT squad can carry max 4 missiles matters. For an mounted assault gun have as well limited supply. But why think that today only AT squads and assault guns can knock out a heavy tank? There are the attack helicopters making a better job,not to mention some forward controllers that can lase some nice targets for you while in an airborne vehicle.

The problem being, the Scorpion is made of aluminum, the 4 we have in the Irish army had the main gun removed and replaced by a 23mm cannon, due to health and safety problems with the recoil mechanisum of the main gun.

The british like-wise have had to re-gun theirs.

Ireland being a very soft country land wise have made extensive use of armoured cars from Panhard in France, with the Panard 60 being fitted with upgrade-kits from South Africa, Ireland also uses the Finish SISU armoured car in Lebanon, along with the Panard 90.

The AMX 13 was tried by the Israelis and found to be difficult to resupply under battlefield conditions, the one in your picture is in an Israeli tank museum.

The problem is there is not one tank to suit all conditions, if you upgrade your armour protection you sacrifice speed, if its air portable its to light to take on the oppositions main battle tanks.

So far nobody has been able to combine all the needs with a one tank package

With regards the Swedish STRV 103 it was designed to fight defenceively in the heavy forrested regions of Sweden, and would have no use in leading frontal attacks scenarios.


Irish Panard 90 passes the Christian Militaia halftrack it knocked out in the battle for Atiri in 1980.


Irish Scorpion before upgrade to cannon.


Panard APC troop transporter with two 7.62 GPMG in the turret, firing ports for the infantry men in the sides, like all Panard items, upgrade kits available, all being add-on's to the basic design, depending on what your countries defence budget is.

Seems each country builds tanks for their own needs first and then tries to adapt them for other locations around the world. What has been found good in Western Europe is not so good for the deserts of Iraq etc...etc. . .

UPDATE



OLD IRISH PANARD 90mm. side view and front view.





Updated Panard with 23 mm Cannon in UN service with the Irish Forces.





Updated Panard with cannon on service in Ireland.



Up-dated Panards and SISU troop carriers of the Irish Military on duty with the U.N.,also a nice shot showing the Irish Camo uniforms, centre guy has the 1st model camo, also note the grenade launcher fixed to the 5.56 austrian styer in the hands of the soldier on the left.


Kevin in Deva.

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on July 21, 2006 07:23 pm

Hizballah disabled a Merkava MK 4 with an AT missile:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/741318.html

It doesnt matter if an AT missile cannot destroy a modern tank if it neutralises its crew. Also I wonder what AT missile the Hizballah used, probably a TOW.

A tank can be dissable in more than one way ...
the easy one is the mobility kill..

Regarding T-84 ... with a total number of 10... call it preserie what ever you like.
Can you give me the source for that armour size?

This post has been edited by tomcat1974 on July 21, 2006 08:11 am