Re: Humvee as a infantry fighting vehicle?

In article <Xns96615AD39FB5Ajuergennieveler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Juergen Nieveler
says...

>John Schilling <schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Well of course. They are *infantry* fighting vehicles; if the
>> infantry isn't going to dismount, you shouldn't have brought them.
>> Fighting from inside armored vehicles is why we have tanks, which are
>> much better at it than any IFV ever was. And which, incidentally,
>> have all-aspect small arms coverage, in our case using the rather
>> impressive .50-caliber definition of "small arms".

>Can the .50cal on the Abrams be controlled from inside? ISTR several
>countries were working on tanks with remote-controlled AA machineguns,
>as the "all aspect small arms coverage" really isn't worth much if your
>tank commander receives a head shot and blocks up the hatch when he
>tries to man the .50 ;-)

And yet there is absolutely no substitute for it.

IIRC, early (possibly only prototype) versions of the Abrams did have
that feature, but I've never heard of it being used. The previous
American MBT, had an armored cupola for the commander and his .50,
and that didn't work very well either.

The tank of course has a coaxial machine gun, on a stabilized mount
with optical and thermal sights and powered traverse. For the subset
of infantry targets that can be engaged by joystick and CRT from under
armor, it is the most effective weapon on the vehicle. And as I noted
in another post, you only want or need the one.

The problem is, there are other infantry targets that can only be
engaged by someone who has his head out where the fighting is, and
we are a long way from the sort of virtual reality interfaces that
might allow a TV camera and some servos to substitute for a head.
The externally mounted machine guns at least allow for most of the
gunners' bodies to be under armor, at least for the targets that can
be engaged from atop the tank.

Still other targets...


>> In close urban areas, though, there is no substitute for the
>> dismounts, and any column of vehicles unsupported by dismounts is
>> going to be vulnerable to mines, RPGs, and the like.
>
>Not only in Urban areas, but also in forests or jungle - just about
>everywhere where there is enough cover to get closer than a few meters
>to the tank without being seen.

..can't be engaged from where the tank is, but need a dismount to go
look around a corner, under a bush, or inside a building. And the
danger zone isn't a few meters, but a few hundred.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition

.

Relevant Pages

  • ARM: Review - Academy 1/35 scale ROK Army K1A1 Main Battle Tank
    ... clean kit of this unique vehicle; ... vehicles to other countries, they found that in Asia there was a ... The tank, dubbed XK-1, looked much like ... with both the ROK Army and ROK Marine Corps. ...
    (rec.models.scale)
  • Re: M-4 Again
    ... Armour is not an issue for such guns. ... the ex post facto opinion of what US Tank Destroyer and armor doctrine ... To be clear the "weapons system" was a self-propelled antitank gun ... >> not being an assault or infantry support tank. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: U S - T 34 Tank ?
    ... German tank strength was deployed primarily against ... Armour is not an issue for such guns. ... the same gun, was more lightly armored, and was a lot faster. ... >The M4 105mm was certainly an infantry support tank and I ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: couple Qs for the treadheads--ON TOPIC, I promise!
    ... A main battle tank is a balanced design ... If you compromise mobility and/or armor ... were sometimes called bogey wheels, ... to be applied even to vehicles that had torsion bar suspensions. ...
    (rec.models.scale)
  • Re: Heuschrecke And Such, Whats The Point?
    ... The US tank destroyers were not cheaper than ... not tank substitutes, but rather special vehicles. ... and the tank destroyers were quite effective in combat. ... Failure is rarely an absolute. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)