As you will be aware, the French have given some AMX10RC's to Ukraine. They have been called "tanks" ... but are they?
[ramble]
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/w_vz01fJwfKxvQCmOc0Uug--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyMDA7aD03NDU-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_new_voice_of_ukraine_articles_294/3c67a7b5c01a16f6f227ca523cc0c7f1)
I suppose it depends on how you define a "tank".
Oxford - a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
Cambridge - a large military fighting vehicle designed to protect those inside it from attack, driven by wheels that turn inside moving metal belts
Collins - A tank is a large military vehicle that is equipped with weapons and moves along on metal tracks that are fitted over the wheels.
Meriam-Webster - an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks
These all seem to suggest that "tanks" should have tracks. These definitions would also include a M109, a ZSU23-4 and a Sturmtiger.
So it's an armoured car? (See also the Guy Wheeled Tank which eventually gave in and became an armoured car.)
Compare the AMX10RC to the Boarhound and the AEC Mk III
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/T18E2-armored-car-haugh-1.JPG/300px-T18E2-armored-car-haugh-1.JPG) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/AEC_Brussels.jpg/300px-AEC_Brussels.jpg)
Boarhound: weight 26 tonnes, armour up to 50mm, armament 57mm & 2mg
AEC Mk3: weight 14 tonnes, armour up to 65mm, armament 75mm & 2mg
AMX10RC: weight 16 tonnes, armour up to 45mm, armament 105mm & 2mg
The main difference then is the huge gun on the AMX - although the AEC probably has something comparable for its time. Does the big gun preclude the AMX10RC from being an armoured car? Replace that 105mm with a Bushmaster and it would definitely be an armoured car.
For me, tanks are defined by their function. I see tanks as armoured vehicles used to destroy material (especially enemy tanks) using direct fire weapons (usually from a enclosed rotating turret, but I'll accept the S-Tank.) There is also an implication of fairly heavy levels of protection.
The AMX10RC is, I believe, defined as a reconnaissance vehicle. It is too lightly armoured to stand up to a T62, although it's powerful gun gives it menace. If the AMX can get in the first shot, it's got a chance, but otherwise, use those reverse gears.
So is the AMX10RC a light tank? My definition above is definitely for MBTs, but light tanks need to have tracks - otherwise it's just an armoured car. Call it a CVR(T) or a Combat Car, but if it has tracks, it's a light tank.
The French have a habit of putting big guns on their armoured cars - see the AML and the EBR, so should we be surprised by the big gun on the AMX10RC?
(https://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/France/Panhard/photos/Panhard_AML-90_Saumur_Museum.jpg) (https://i.redd.it/23ish6h87eg01.jpg)
In summary then, I don't think the AMX10RC is a MBT, nor a light tank. To me, it is a heavy armoured car with a very big gun.
[/ramble]
It's certainly not a tank fsn (though the media will probably call it one as its got a turret with a large gun).
The French originally treated it as a fire support vehicle, and more latterly as a tank destroyer, though the article below points out that its not really that capable any more in that role against current tanks.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amx_10_rc.htm (http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amx_10_rc.htm)
From the article
QuoteHull and turret are of welded aluminum armor construction. Vehicle withstands hits from medium-caliber weapons and artillery shell splinters.
Definitely not a tank
Thank goodness! I was beginning to think I was being gaslit.
I suppose calling them "tanks" is more for political purposes.
QuoteThe French originally treated it as a fire support vehicle, and more latterly as a tank destroyer,
According to Wiki "RC" stands for "Roues-Canon", meaning "Wheeled gun".
My 1996
Janes defines it as a reconnaissance vehicle designed "to replace the Panhard EBR Armoured Car". Interestingly, Christopher Foss in
Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles (2002) describes both the AMX10RC and the EBR as "Reconnaissance Vehicles".
QuoteDefinitely not a tank
Agreed. :-B
It's supposed to be a recce vehicle. Too expensive and replaced in effect by the ERC90.
The best way to define what an AFV is is to look at the type of units it was issued to.
Thus an S-Tank is a tank, because it was issued to tank companies, and not to anti-tank companies.
In this case the AMX-10RC is a reconnaissance vehicle as it was issued to corps level recce regiments and then recce regiments of infantry divisions. Think of it as a scout jeep with some tinplate and a big gun and fancy electronics.
Or you could play a wargame with a squadron of them and see how well you do against a Soviet-era tank battalion.
Incidentally it's firepower isn't that good anymore. It's OFL105F3 FSAPDS round was reasonable for the early 1980s, with penetration of 32cm/1000m/90* and quite easily handle vanilla T-55, T-62, Centurion, M60A3 frontally, but it didn't come into service until 1987, and even those sent to GW1 didn't arrive with any at all - although they were issued FSAPDS in time for Desert Storm. Up till then it relied on the OCC105F3 HEAT round penetrating 35cm at all ranges.
The FSAPDS & HEAT would fail dismally against the current MBTs in the Ukraine war, festooned as they are with ceramic and reactive armours. As it would against contemporary late 1980s top of the range tanks of all sides.
As far as I've been able to find out, only the HEAT round has been improved since the 1980s, although there is no data on it's current penetration, or whether it has improved since the 1980s round.
People tend to think it has an equivalent gun to the AMX-30, but is in fact a shortened (105mmL47) gun with lower capabilities than the gun in the AMX-30.
Mark
Quote from: sultanbev on 07 January 2023, 09:52:48 AMThe best way to define what an AFV is is to look at the type of units it was issued to.
I agree with the thrust of your thesis (2nd Welsh Guards using Cromwells as a recce unit notwithstanding), I think it compliments my definition by role. If I were to wargame AMX10RC's against T62's, I'd adopt the S-Tank philosophy of using mobility and sniping rather than trying to slug it out - somewhat akin to the original purpose of the US Tank destroyer Force. However, this defensive tactic is at odds with the original task of probing ahead.
Quote from: sultanbev on 07 January 2023, 09:52:48 AMvanilla ... Centurion
There ain't no such animal!
Quote from: fsn on 07 January 2023, 10:43:31 AMHowever, this defensive tactic is at odds with the original task of probing ahead.
Yes, from what I remember from French websites, the doctrine of the French in the Cold War allocates the AMX-10RC units to probing into Germany to find the advancing Warpac forces ahead of the main armoured forces, and reporting back, preferably all whilst outside of French territory, just in case the Plutons had to be used. The recce would then guide the previously spread out converging armoured regiments onto the enemy columns and destroy them with manouevre and fire, whilst the recce probed aside to find open spaces between other advancing columns.
They did envisage having to fight their way into Germany to come to NATO assistance rather then pre-deploying as part of the overall defence. When you look at French TOE from this doctrinal point of view, their aneamic 1980s TOE (divisions that were only brigades in size, regiments that were only battalions) makes a little more sense.
Mark
Although, all said and done, the AMX-10RC is one of the coolest looking armoured cars around :)
On that we can definitely agree.
QuoteIt's certainly not a tank fsn (though the media will probably call it one as its got a turret with a large gun).
According to many journalists any miltary vehicle with some form of armour, whether armed or not, is a "tank"! X_X
Very true.
To those of us who know the origins of the tank from WW1 and its subsequent evolution; obviously not a tank.
But to members of the press and the general public, anything military with a turret and a gun and/or tracks is a tank. However, it must also be said that many military enthusiasts tend to get fixated on the idea that only MBTs are tanks.
Expanding the discussion, is the modern IFV a tank? I would argue that it is. Why? It is armoured, tracked and sufficiently armed to provide fire support. It also takes the idea of "tank riders" a step further by having the facility to carry its own infantry support inside rather than outside the vehicle. Additionally, depending on the main armament, it has the ability to take on various armoured vehicles, including MBTs if armed with a suitable anti-armour missile.
So, for those who would argue that their nation's army does not have enough "tanks," I would argue that it has far more "tanks" than they might think.
[p.s. with the introduction of rubber tracks,* perhaps the dictionary definition requirement for the vehicle to have "metallic" tracks should now be revised?]
* presumably metal reinforced?
Certainly in the 80's and 90's "rubber" tracks meant rubber blokcs on the metal treads, to stop tanks chewing up the German roads....
Interesting to find that out, Ian. What would be referred to as rubber pads, nowadays? More accurately, the "rubber tracks" I'm thinking about are the composite ones fitted to the likes of The Netherlands' upgrade to their CV90s. :)
Military Rubber Track Systems (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuJmBt2V0HA)
QuoteExpanding the discussion, is the modern IFV a tank? I would argue that it is. Why? It is armoured, tracked and sufficiently armed to provide fire support.
I would argue not. Its role is not to fight but to transport and support. Its armour is too thin to stand in "line of battle".
Then again, I wouldn't say that the Terminator is a tank. It's a T72 chassis with 2x30mm, 4xmissle launchers and 2xgrenade launchers. It's mission is to
support MBTs so isn't (IMHO) a tank itself. It should perform better in urban environments than a T72 because of its ferocious armament, but I still can't bring myself to call it a tank.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tank_support_combat_vehicle_%22Terminator%22.jpg)
I think I've talked myself into thinking that every tank has a big gun, but not everything with a big gun is a tank.
OK, so the Matilda 1 was a tank, so was the the WWI female tank.
Panzer I and II were tanks, I suppose, but IMHO light tanks pushed into a big tank role.
FT17 was a tank even when only armed with a mg.
Dammit, what is a tank?!
QuoteDammit, what is a tank?!
Indeed! Now you are starting to see. ;D
When we think of tanks, we envisage a beast that can go toe to toe with other tanks - essentially today's main Battle Tank - and, I would argue, the main reason why modern MBTs have such thick armour and such large calibre guns and so bloody expensive as a result.
The first (British) tanks were not designed to fight other tanks; they were designed to cross shell holes and trenches, plough lanes through barbed wire, resist small arms fire and provide significant fire power (in the form of quick firing guns and/or machine guns) in close support of the infantry attack. Having the capability to take other tanks on, came later.
The vehicle you describe ("not to fight but to transport and support") is probably more appropriately know as the battle field taxi, the APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier). The IFV (Infantry
Fighting Vehicle) is a step forward in that it is not only designed to transport the infantry but also provide direct fire support, if required.
The trend for new, modern IFVs seems to be to have larger calibre weapons also. For example, the CV9035 (a 35mm chain gun), the CV9040 (a 40mm Bofors), the troubled Ajax (a 40mm CTA) - also, the U.S. Army's requirement for a 50mm weapon for their future IFV. Certain ammo for guns as "small" as 30mm can also be programmed to perform in various ways at the point it leaves the muzzle with no guesswork (e.g., airbursts timed to explode at the exact distance to the target or only exploding when it enters a building). Many modern IFVs also have the ability to don additional armour (witness the Warrior IFV in the 2nd - if not also the 1st - Gulf War). It should also be borne in mind that APS (Active Protection System) is now starting to figure more in the defences of armoured vehicles nowadays. Finally, if MBT opposition is encountered whilst supporting the infantry with direct fire support, whilst the IFVs should try to step back out of sight from the fight, if they do have an anti-tank capability included within their armament, they can still make a very positive contribution in support of the infantry.
I'm not saying that the MBT has had its day - it still has its uses, imho (although not perhaps in the same numbers as before, given their expense and the multiple threats nowadays to massed armoured formations) - but, all considered, when one compares the modern IFV to, say, the Stuart with its 37mm main gun and other early tanks of WW2, and the service they can perform in support of the infantry, it's hard not to consider modern IFVs as "tanks." Indeed, when I also think about the weight of a modern IFV compared to early WW2 tanks (with "add-on" armour, we're talking over 40 tons with some of these IFVs), how can we ignore the fact that they are effectively, evolved light (if not medium) "tanks."
To me Tracked & with a big gun = tank
The AMX10RC is an armoured car (in my world) as whilst it has a reasonable gun, it has road wheels, which makes it actually more useful for fast advances.
We all tend to focus on MBTs as the main battlefield threat - but these armoured recce formations were also ideal for taking out unsupported APCs or AFVs (like BMPs etc). Which will proliferate in Eastern Ukraine.
I am not sure what range the gun has, but I suspect it might be longer than the original BMP 1 range?
QuoteThe vehicle you describe ("not to fight but to transport and support") is probably more appropriately know as the battle field taxi, the APC (Armoured Personnel Carrier). The IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) is a step forward in that it is not only designed to transport the infantry but also provide direct fire support, if required.
Hmm. No, I see it differently. The IFV is there to take infantry into battle and support them with vehicle mounted weapons.
A tank is there to kick bottom and take names; to dominate and destroy. A tank (MBT in this case) needs to be supported by infantry (ask the Russians tankers in Ukraine about lack of infantry support) whereas the IFV is more flexible in usage, but overall less powerful.
An (faulty) analogy would be the battleship and the destroyer. The battleship is a big gun platform. The destroyer is anti-sub, anti-air, with a smaller gun. The battleship needs destroyers, but even if you equip destroyers with anti-ship missiles that can take down a battleship - they're not battleships. Destroyers are very useful, but if you want something bombarded on shore - you'd do better with a battleship (or a monitor; the AMX10RC of the seas.)
Quotehow can we ignore the fact that they (IFVs) are effectively, evolved light (if not medium) "tanks."
Easily enough I think.
(https://images04.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/military-life/deployment/2012/09/gmc_truck.jpg) (https://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/M3-Halftrack.jpg) (http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113.jpg) (https://www.israeldefense.co.il/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_image/public/_Uploads/dbsArticles/M2A2-DoD.jpg?itok=iSPU9QlU)
The M2 Bradley IFV evolved from vehicles designed to carry infantry.
The M3/M5 Stuart light tank line effectively died with the M551 Sheridan. The light tank role (recce) being picked up by variants of other vehicles (like the M3 Bradley recce)
As far as the future of MBTs is concerned, I share your view. The M1 Abrams weights in at 70 tons, and $9m. How much bigger and heavier and expensive can they get? At some point the contest between gun and armour will be won (maybe by the missile) and there will have to be a rethink. Otherwise, we'll end up with a C21 version of the Maus.
Quote from: Big Insect on 08 January 2023, 10:34:18 AMTo me Tracked & with a big gun = tank
Agreed. I would add "direct fire" to "gun". Put a howitzer in, you have a SPG.
Quote from: fsn on 08 January 2023, 11:01:08 AMAgreed. I would add "direct fire" to "gun". Put a howitzer in, you have a SPG.
Agreed.
Specific tracked 'tank destroyers' tend to muddy the water a bit though :'( =)
Quote from: Big Insect on 08 January 2023, 11:34:04 AMAgreed.
Specific tracked 'tank destroyers' tend to muddy the water a bit though :'( =)
US army WWII - if it's got a lid it's a tank, no lid a tank destroyer..... cause it 45 the M10 and M36 grew "lids"
"I am not sure what range the gun has, but I suspect it might be longer than the original BMP 1 range? "
Effective range (70% base hit chance) of the 105mmL47 on the AMX-10RC was 1500m with HEAT, 1800m with FSAPDS.
Maximum effective range (30% base hit chance) was 2200m with HEAT, 2700m with FSAPDS.
The 73mm on the BMP-1 was 500m and 1250m respectively.
Mark
Quote from: fsn on 08 January 2023, 10:59:30 AMAs far as the future of MBTs is concerned, I share your view. The M1 Abrams weights in at 70 tons, and $9m. How much bigger and heavier and expensive can they get? At some point the contest between gun and armour will be won (maybe by the missile) and there will have to be a rethink. Otherwise, we'll end up with a C21 version of the Maus.
I look forward to the deployment of 21C "Ratte" .... possibly to counter "Ogre" land battleships :)
The MPF. A light armoured vehicle designed to support infantry. 105mm gun; not designed primarily to take on MBTs. This is a modern light tank. :'(
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/MobileProtectedFirepower.jpg/1024px-MobileProtectedFirepower.jpg)
En garde! A reposte, monsieur! ;)
QuoteHmm. No, I see it differently. The IFV is there to take infantry into battle and support them with vehicle mounted weapons.
... but you previously stated that the IFV is
not to fight ...
QuoteA tank is there to kick bottom and take names; to dominate and destroy. A tank (MBT in this case) needs to be supported by infantry (ask the Russians tankers in Ukraine about lack of infantry support) whereas the IFV is more flexible in usage, but overall less powerful.
As I say, some of us are fixated with MBT = tank. If it so happens that your (modern) IFV is at the top of the food chain in some local situation, it will "kick bottom and take names" and so be effectively a "tank."
QuoteAn (faulty) analogy would be the battleship and the destroyer. The battleship is a big gun platform. The destroyer is anti-sub, anti-air, with a smaller gun. The battleship needs destroyers, but even if you equip destroyers with anti-ship missiles that can take down a battleship - they're not battleships. Destroyers are very useful, but if you want something bombarded on shore - you'd do better with a battleship (or a monitor; the AMX10RC of the seas.)
Modern (RN) destroyer = anti-air. Modern (RN) frigate = anti-sub. Battleship = obsolete. In modern Western navies, indiscriminate shore bombardment is a feature of the past. Although most modern frigates and destroyers have one large calibre bow gun, modern shore bombardment (by Western powers) is more likely to be executed with cruise missiles or other precision air attacks directed towards specific targets.
QuoteEasily enough I think.
(https://images04.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/media/military-life/deployment/2012/09/gmc_truck.jpg) (https://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/M3-Halftrack.jpg) (http://www.military-today.com/apc/m113.jpg) (https://www.israeldefense.co.il/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_image/public/_Uploads/dbsArticles/M2A2-DoD.jpg?itok=iSPU9QlU)
Not bad but what's missing are the photos of WW1 tanks with their
armour, tracks and guns and WW2 tanks with infantry riding on the backs of the tanks. The IFV not only has a mother but also a father.
QuoteThe M2 Bradley IFV evolved from vehicles designed to carry infantry.
.. but also recognised the benefits of close support from the increased firepower of tanks (and the utility of infantry support riding on the tanks) so the evolution incorporated firepower at a higher level than the M113 APC (and a turret) and in consequence produced a hybrid between APC and light tank. With its extra internal space at the rear capable of carrying infantry or being used for medical evacuation, is the Merkava no longer a tank?
QuoteThe M3/M5 Stuart light tank line effectively died with the M551 Sheridan. The light tank role (recce) being picked up by variants of other vehicles (like the M3 Bradley recce)
When you compare the recce version of the Bradley (or CV90, or Ajax), can you not help thinking that this is a type of tank?
[sorry,must 'disengage' - Mrs Westie wants to watch a film on Netflix ... :P ;D ]
Touche!
QuoteEn garde! A reposte, monsieur! ;) ... but you previously stated that the IFV is not to fight ...
You missed the rest of that sentence. I said it was "to transport and support". I also said that it's armour is too thin to stand "in line of battle". When I said "to fight", I was possibly a little unclear. The purpose of an MBT is to shoot at things with its big gun. The purpose of an IFV is to carry infantry, and to give them fire support. In the case of fire support, it's antecedents could well be the StuG and the British Infantry tanks.
QuoteAs I say, some of us are fixated with MBT = tank. If it so happens that your (modern) IFV is at the top of the food chain in some local situation, it will "kick bottom and take names" and so be effectively a "tank."
Ah! No. I think that the IFV may well become top of the food chain, but that doesn't make it a "tank". The carrier is the top of the naval food chain, but that doesn't make it a battleship.
QuoteModern (RN) destroyer = anti-air. Modern (RN) frigate = anti-sub. Battleship = obsolete. In modern Western navies, indiscriminate shore bombardment is a feature of the past. Although most modern frigates and destroyers have one large calibre bow gun, modern shore bombardment (by Western powers) is more likely to be executed with cruise missiles or other precision air attacks directed towards specific targets.
Yeah. I was thinking WWII. The battleship was there to blow things up with its big guns. The destroyer was there (in the fleet) to protect the battleships. (Original purpose of the destroyer was to destroy torpedo boats.) As for indiscriminate shore bombardment, let's see when China invades Taiwan.
QuoteNot bad but what's missing are the photos of WW1 tanks with their armour, tracks and guns and WW2 tanks with infantry riding on the backs of the tanks. The IFV not only has a mother but also a father. ..
Umm. No. :-B My photos were to show the development of vehicles
designed to carry infantry (to keep up with tanks?) If I take your idea to its logical conclusion we get ...
(https://www.britishempire.co.uk/images2/scotsgreysgordons.jpg)
Quotebut also recognised the benefits of close support from the increased firepower of tanks (and the utility of infantry support riding on the tanks) so the evolution incorporated firepower at a higher level than the M113 APC (and a turret) and in consequence produced a hybrid between APC and light tank.
OK, but the addition of firepower is a logical development of the MGs on the halftrack. Like the Germans adding a 3.7cm gun to a SdKfz251. The BMP1 (I think) was the first IFV, designed to fight alongside the infantry it carried, not just be a battle taxi.
(https://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/6/6a/Dads_M1917.jpg/600px-Dads_M1917.jpg)
QuoteWith its extra internal space at the rear capable of carrying infantry or being used for medical evacuation, is the Merkava no longer a tank?
Like the S-Tank, the Merkava has some design features dictated by particular circumstances. The Israelis designed the Merkava to minimise casualties - hence the engine in the front for example. Carrying a few infantrymen in the tank
is the successor to the tank rider. Not on top, pop 'em inside. The Israelis have developed the Namer, which is basically a Merkava Kangaroo. This says to me that they can tell the difference.
(https://aw.my.games/sites/aw.my.com/files/u183517/namer_prototype.jpg)
QuoteWhen you compare the recce version of the Bradley (or CV90, or Ajax), can you not help thinking that this is a type of tank?
Honestly, no. I see it as a great way to maximise designs and common components. To bring things full circle, they fail to be tanks in the same way that the AMX10RC fails to be a tank. Their role is not primarily to destroy material. Their role is to sneak around and spy around corners.
:D
You have your views and I have mine. Whilst I do get the impression your views may be grounded in the last wars (e.g., WW2, the Cold War, battleships?), I like to think that I've stepped back from stereotypes, abandoned previous misconceptions and now looked at the issue more logically in light of the origins and history of the first tanks. The result being that my own prejudices about the IFV have changed and that it should now be recognised as a type of "tank" even if you do not agree.
However, as for your rejoinder, there were a few things I was disappointed with.
For example, you say
You missed the rest of that sentence. I said it was "to transport and support".
- No I didn't miss the rest. You read it and quoted it in your post on 8/1/23.
Also,
As for indiscriminate shore bombardment, let's see when China invades Taiwan.
- .. as you will recall, I distinctly referred to "Western" powers ...
(and if the Chinese do, God forbid or help us all, it won't be with battleships).
As for your analogies and 'logic,' carriers and battleships have got nothing to do with the evolution of the armoured vehicle known to history as the tank. And the jibe about taking my idea to its logical conclusion, how is the charge of the Scots Greys a sensible conclusion? That, followed up with Jones the Butchers van didn't make a positive contribution with me either.
I'm finished.
I'm sorry if I have upset you, it was not my intention.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AMYou have your views and I have mine. Whilst I do get the impression your views may be grounded in the last wars (e.g., WW2, the Cold War, battleships?), I like to think that I've stepped back from stereotypes, abandoned previous misconceptions and now looked at the issue more logically in light of the origins and history of the first tanks. The result being that my own prejudices about the IFV have changed and that it should now be recognised as a type of "tank" even if you do not agree.
I don't agree. My thesis is that the "tank" (even the first ones) were strike/assault vehicles, not infantry transport. The modern IFV does not descend from the WWI tank. I use WWII examples as to my mind the case is clearer. There tends to be fewer "types" of warships now than in 1944 as hulls are used for multiple functions.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AMYou missed the rest of that sentence. I said it was "to transport and support".
- No I didn't miss the rest. You read it and quoted it in your post on 8/1/23.
I think you may have taken the words, but missed the poinmt.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AMAs for indiscriminate shore bombardment, let's see when China invades Taiwan.
- .. as you will recall, I distinctly referred to "Western" powers ...
You did refer to Western powers, but you ignore the point that bombardment is a choice open to those who have the will and the ability to do so.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AM(and if the Chinese do, God forbid or help us all, it won't be with battleships).
No it won't be battleships, but by your logic they would be considered "battleships".
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AMAs for your analogies and 'logic,' carriers and battleships have got nothing to do with the evolution of the armoured vehicle known to history as the tank.
My analogy of the aircraft carrier is that in WWI the battleship was the primary naval weapon. It has been superseded by the aircraft carrier, but the aircraft carrier is not considered a battleship. Similarly, the IFV may well overtake the MBT as "queen of the battlefield", but it's not going to be a "tank".
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AMAnd the jibe about taking my idea to its logical conclusion, how is the charge of the Scots Greys a sensible conclusion?
Apologies, no jibe was meant. You keep citing tank riders as the precursors to the IFV. I see tank riders as infantry hitching a ride, just as in the Scots Greys picture. My contention is that tank riders were a necessary evil, an expedient rather than a product of design.
Quote from: Westmarcher on 09 January 2023, 12:38:23 AMThat, followed up with Jones the Butchers van didn't make a positive contribution with me either.
That was a joke at my expense - my line on vehicles designed to carry infantry.
Apologies again. I thought we were having a productive disagreement.
Let's keep this friendly guys, I've been enjoying the back and forth here. I've never really considered what constitutes a tank beyond turret, tracks, big gun so I think I've simplified things too far to just what 'looks' like a tank?!
When we released the recent Soviet IFVs some of them ticked all of my 'tank' boxes but didn't 'look' like tanks... They looked like IFVs...
Apologies Leon. Apologies Westie.
No offence meant on my part.
I leave without comment the chap from the Telegraph trying to define a tank. From about 21:45.
QuoteLet's keep this friendly guys, I've been enjoying the back and forth here. I've never really considered what constitutes a tank beyond turret, tracks, big gun so I think I've simplified things too far to just what 'looks' like a tank?!
When we released the recent Soviet IFVs some of them ticked all of my 'tank' boxes but didn't 'look' like tanks... They looked like IFVs...
We've corresponded and it's all good between us, Leon. Perhaps I was feeling over sensitive at the time.
We'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...
;D ;D ;D
Thanks for that.
Quote from: Leon on 10 January 2023, 01:59:19 PMWe'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...
What about the ones that can teleport Leon ... ;)
Quote from: Leon on 10 January 2023, 01:59:19 PMWe'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...
Leave me out of this!
Quote from: Big Insect on 11 January 2023, 10:50:15 AMWhat about the ones that can teleport Leon ... (https://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/Smileys/SoLoSMiLeYS1/wink.gif)
Is that for Flames of War WW2 games, where teleporting platoons is quite normal?
Quote from: sultanbev on 11 January 2023, 12:19:46 PMIs that for Flames of War WW2 games, where teleporting platoons is quite normal?
Yes and it does not matter what role the vehicle had, you just line them up like they are in a car park. :)
But
Quote from: Orcs on 11 January 2023, 03:27:58 PMYes and it does not matter what role the vehicle had, you just line them up like they are in a car park. :)
But just think of all those vehicles that Leon could sell ... isnt that the Flames of War model????
Saw a game of FoW recently at the Burnley club, I nearly quit wargaming altogether on the spot - one of the most depressing wargames experiences since WRG 4th edition. Ugh.
Some rules writers have no concept of physics. =)
The difference between tanks and other AFV, tracked or otherwise, lies in their intended role and the characteristics they have to perform that role. I have never been confused.
Wot John said.
Tango One Three Alpha, Out!
Cheers Paul
Quote from: pierre the shy on 06 January 2023, 10:33:25 PMIt's certainly not a tank fsn (though the media will probably call it one as its got a turret with a large gun).
The French originally treated it as a fire support vehicle, and more latterly as a tank destroyer, though the article below points out that its not really that capable any more in that role against current tanks.
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amx_10_rc.htm (http://www.military-today.com/artillery/amx_10_rc.htm)
Fortunately for the Ukrainian armed forces, they're not exactly facing many modern vehicles!
That 105 should mash up a good proportion of Russian armour, doubly so if the Russians are starting to employ a lot of T-62...
Local news seems to agree that the AMX10RC isn't a tank, just an armoured recce vehicle.
https://www.nu.nl/297695/video/wanneer-is-iets-wel-of-geen-tank.html
Main points for deciding what is and isn't a tank is level of armour and intended tasks, which include archieving a breakthrough and knocking out other tanks according to this video.
Didn't understand a word of the video, but loved the way she said it. ;D ;D ;D
Wow! From the comments on the Dutch video I looked up some NATO definitions (this one admittedly from 1996) https://www.nato.int/ifor/general/d960126a.htm (https://www.nato.int/ifor/general/d960126a.htm)
The term "battle tank" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16,5 metric tons unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre. In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.
The term "armoured combat vehicle" means a self-propelled vehicle with armoured protection and cross-country capability. Armoured combat vehicles include armoured personnel carriers, armoured infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy armament combat vehicles.
The term "armoured personnel carrier" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20 millimeters calibre.
The term "armoured infantry fighting vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armoured protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher. Armoured infantry fighting vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of armoured infantry or mechanized infantry or motorized infantry formations and units of ground forces.
The term "heavy armament combat vehicle" means an armoured combat vehicle with an integral or organic direct fire gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre, weighing at least 6,0 metric tons unladen weight, which does not fall within the definition of an armoured personnel carrier, or an armoured infantry fighting vehicle or a battle tank.
So the S-Tank is not a tank (no turret).
The AMX10RC is not a tank (not a "high level off self protection")
The Terminator is not a tank (biggest gun is 30mm)
The "is the S-Tank a tank" debate is as old as a tank.
I think there's scope for doctrinal employment - is the vehcile capable of being used as a tank, and employed as such, in situations where "actual tanks" are used? (a BMP might well be a "main battle tank" in some warlord militia, but it's not at peer to an actual tank, for instance).
And my answer on that is "yes", as the Swedes happily used the S-Tank as a tank for the same missions as their tanks with turrets. It's not designed or intended as a "tank hunter".
I would NOT consider the Jagdpanzerkanone as a "tank", becuase it's not intended as such and is intended as a tank hunter/armoured ATG/assault gun.
QuoteWe'll be throwing the cat amongst the pigeons with the new Sci-Fi ranges, as I've got a lot of MBTs in there that'll be either anti-grav or wheeled...
At least you can use hover-tank or grav-tank for the former ;)
For the latter? Well, in space, no on can hear you debate the definition of tanks or AFVs... ^#(^
I'd hate to be a quartermaster for the Ukranians at the moment.
how many different types of vehicles, weapons and ammunition must they be dealing with?
Quote from: fsn on 19 March 2023, 02:36:44 PMI'd hate to be a quartermaster for the Ukranians at the moment.
how many different types of vehicles, weapons and ammunition must they be dealing with?
I've wondered that, the logistics of dealing with so many different manufacturers of hardware must be crazy. I wonder if any of the donating countries are sending support staff with them, mechanics, spare parts, etc?
Quote from: Leon on 20 March 2023, 03:16:16 PMI've wondered that, the logistics of dealing with so many different manufacturers of hardware must be crazy. I wonder if any of the donating countries are sending support staff with them, mechanics, spare parts, etc?
Someone posited that a lot of it is performative or propaganda. The really important thing is the 155mm artillery
Have yuo seen the Perun video on this?