Modern Armour

[Oleander Ardens]

Your country is a landlocked rich western nation relatively densly populated by roughly 10 million people. As a member you NATO you want to create a deployable force with a managable logistic footprint. Your standing NATO was constructed to repel the massive mechanized assault of the Red Army, and a good deal of it'a material is nearing the end of it's lifecycle.

Your task is first of all to purchase a fleet of AFV which can be airlifted by the C-17 and the Airbus transporters of your allies. It should be able to withstand the most challanges of IED, heavy machineguns and RPG-7's, carry a punch both in Urban Combat and in open plains and have good speed, mobility and range. Logistics should br kept at a minimum.

Which modern AFV attract in which configurations your attention?


Cheers
OA

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

By AFV (Armoured Fighting Vehicle), are we talking about tanks, APCs, IFVs, S-PA, TDs, or Tankettes?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

My choices...

Tank
Leopard II - heavily armed and armoured, excellent range of operation, and fairly fast for a MBT.

APC
Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé - It's fast. It has a range of 1000km. And there's nothing wrong with it's armour, even though APCs may well be outdated.

IFV
The Puma, though I also like equally the FV510 Warrior and Stridsfordon 90.

Self-Propelled Artillery
South African G6 howitzer, no question about it.

Tank Destroyer
While I personally believe that tank destroyers are outdated because of air support and accurate missile artillery, the Mobile Gun System on a LAV III is one of the best out there.

Tankette
The Wiesel is really the only one worth considering. All the rest are outdated.

[CBR]

Then it would be wheeled vehicles like the Stryker series or similar(Piranha series)

If logistics and speed is less of a concern then a tracked vehicle like the Swedish CV90 could be a good option, as that also has mortar and gun versions for supporting the regular infantry fighting vehicle version.


CBR

[Oleander Ardens]

Everything is allowed, but I should consider a the defense budget of a country like Sweden or Switzerland. Perhaps I should describe your likely area of operation, your available allies and they your enemy fights them now.

Your area of operation lies in the northern hemissphere, and is subject to very cold winters with considerable amount of dry snow and hot summers. The climate is quite dry, but strong saisonal rainfall might well transform the landscape in a muddy swamp, especially in the hills south of the mountain ranges and around the many streams running out of them. It is dominated by som major, intertwined mountain ranges streching from sourthwest to northeast. A highly complex terrain ranging from the rocky, steep and distinct mountains in the west to the high-altidute planes with gentle "hills" in the east. The flora and fauna in the altidute is scares, however the large plains are home to nomads. Considering the sheer size of the land it is sparsely populated, roughly 1.5 millions on the size of combined Scandinavia.

The terrain gets flatter in the south, where the Taiga sominates, as it catches most of the rain, which comes usually from the south. Her dwells also the majority of the population in small villages and a few bigger cities. The infrastructure is a joke for western standards. Stabile bridges are found on the main connections between the cities and on the Itzu and Zirkad , the two army road running to the few settlements and army stations in the northern mountains and plains. While both run over high passes and spectacular mountains, the Zrikad travels afterwards mostly over the great plains, while the Itzu serpentines "goes like a snake" through seemingly endless mountains. Needless to say that both suffer greatly after each winter and need urgent repairing every spring.


You strategic goal is to support the local goverment and in your goverment's view legitimate one. Your allies, other Nato countries have started to ship troops to fight the rebels...

Your thoughts

To be continued

Cheers
OA

[Kagemusha]

1.5 million people on the area size of Scandinavia? Sounds like Grönland to me.I guess i would buy few new harpoons to hunt seals.

[Oleander Ardens]

Was a typo. 11.5 millions :beam:

[AggonyDuck]

I've been looking around and I'd propably purchase the Patria AMV as the core of my AFV fleet. Due to it's modular construction it is very flexible, and it combines excellent speed, mobility and range. It can field different mortar and gun systems to add fire support to the infantry. Additionally modular armour can be added. Overall a very versatile vehicle useful for such low intensity conflicts fought by the NATO these days.

EDIT: Also it has the advantage of being transportable with the C-130 and having wheels instead of tracks does lessen the logistic burden a bit.

[CBR]

Yes vehicles like AMV, Boxer or VBCI all appear to be excellent choices for wheeled vehicles.

If one wants to have something even lighter that can be transported in a Chinook then the Italian Puma (the 4x4 5.7 tons version) might be an option too. Although I would prefer only to have a few speciel units with such light vehicles.


CBR

[Oleander Ardens]

Maoist forces on the rise!

Two italian oil engineers have been abducted by an unkown group of armed men, which are according to official sources part of the armed movement which has stepping up it's attacks against isolated army and police stations in the vast northern territories over the last year.
Both have been working as members of a small study group financed by one major oilcompany keen to exploit likely oil fields in the northeast plains.

Ok, I shaped the landscape where your AFV are most likely forced to fight - and to be ambushed.

The infrastructure is a joke for western standards. Stabile bridges are found on the main connections between the cities and on the Itzu and Zirkad , the two army road running to the few settlements and army stations in the northern mountains and plains. While both run over high passes and spectacular mountains, the Zrikad travels afterwards mostly over the great plains, while the Itzu serpentines "goes like a snake" through seemingly endless mountains. Needless to say that both suffer greatly after each winter and need urgent repairing every spring.

The maoist forces enjoy good support among the local population in the eastern mountains, which forms a ethnic subgroup.

A small group of western forces should stop the traffic of arms and especially drugs which helps to finance the war in Pastunistan lying in the west...

Your should participate with roughly 1000 men

More to come...

[Tran]

Excuse me Oleander, I could be wrong but judging by the way the topic's heading, isn't this more 'proper' if placed in sub-forum Chapter House because (to me at least) it looks like one of those Interactive Histories

BTW about your latest post: Is the landscape Central Asia or Caucasus type?

[DemonArchangel]

1000 men is about a mechanized infantry battalion and some extra forces. I would probably mount most of my men in Strykers, due to their proven off road capabilities, immense durability, general reliability, and net-centric warfare ability. I would definitely take along a few durable attack helicopters, such as Ka-50s, because they deliver a lot of firepower quickly and cheaply.

Also, I would retrofit my Strykers with more powerful engines, and a 30mm cannon in the turret. The 30mm cannon would have the ability to fire air bursting shells, which would do a really good job of smoking any insurgents out of a barricaded area.

For reconnaissance and scouting, I would use some sort of HMMVW type vehicle, or a 4 wheeled security vehicle of some sort, like the MV-1998.

[Marshal Murat]

What about mobile fuel/repair for the mechanized force?
Would there be adequate forces for such repair, what is their state?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Was a typo. 11.5 millions :beam:
It's sounding more like Canada already. :2thumbsup:

[AggonyDuck]

Abrams and Bradleys get the job done, really. I mean, it doesn't hurt to have Strykers around, but they are really more of a cost-cutting measure than anything else, IMO.

Well we're talking of a smaller NATO member country and one of the key requirements was a manageable logistic footprint. So cost-cutting measures are actually essential.

[Oleander Ardens]

Excuse me Oleander, I could be wrong but judging by the way the topic's heading, isn't this more 'proper' if placed in sub-forum Chapter House because (to me at least) it looks like one of those Interactive Histories

Yes, perhaps it is, even if I didn't plan it that way



BTW about your latest post: Is the landscape Central Asia or Caucasus type?

I that the Altai ranges and parts of Mongolia and Southern Siberia with it's Taiga capture the landscapes quite well.


What about mobile fuel/repair for the mechanized force?
Would there be adequate forces for such repair, what is their state?

There is a branch of an major pipeline running through the the wooded south of the country, but refined gasoline and diesel have to be transported around with relative small trucks. The bad roads and long distances make fuel a scarce ressource in the north where the maoist forces operate.

NATO has only few man on the ground, trying to asses the situation and to get more informations about the way to help the local goverment..



Well we're talking of a smaller NATO member country and one of the key requirements was a manageable logistic footprint. So cost-cutting measures are actually essential.

True, however it might be possible to ship your proven Leos II A5, although it requires good diplomatic relationships with two regional powers...


In the last week two major tracked competitors have showed up:

1) The CV90: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_90

2) The Puma II : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puma_%28IFV%29

How do you evaluate this two vehicles head to head. Keep in mind that your troops should return home with minimum casualites and that this vehicles might be your infantry's main fire support...

Of course you can also choose a different path..

Cheers
OA

[Oleander Ardens]

1) Youtube has a great deal of videos of the CV in various config. Amazing tactical mobility of a wellarmored package with a impressive amount of uses. The AMOS variant gives you quite a indirect and direct supportive firepower...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiLHhCqt7I&mode=related&search=

For general information:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/index.html

A great tracked AIFV what do you think? Might it be your choice considering the bad roads, wide spaces and terrible weather conditions?

Cheers
OA

[CBR]

CV90 is nice but since you mention wide spaces and bad infrastructure I would want a force that has the lowest maintenance and fuel consumption while still being mobile and armoured.

And for that wheeled vehicles is the best option. They are also great for rapid deployment over long distances, especially if one creates a force that relies on as few types of vehicles as possible. A good example are Stryker brigades compared to the standard US heavy brigades.

If I had to pick a specific vehicle I would suggest the Patria AMV.

http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product.php?prodID=1296

https://youtube.com/watch?v=5SqOKItt9G8

It also has the advantage of having more infantry than the turreted tracked vehicles like CV90. And has lots of choice for weapons incl the AMOS.

What type of weapons do these Maoist rebels have?


CBR

[Oleander Ardens]

CV90 is nice but since you mention wide spaces and bad infrastructure I would want a force that has the lowest maintenance and fuel consumption while still being mobile and armoured.

Yes. from what I've read they require less maintenance - although I might add that demanding crosscountry driving - usually done by tracked vehicles -greatly increases the chance of getting stuck and the likelyhood of breaking someting. Wheeled vehicles traditionally stayed on roads and good ground, in short staying away from risky crosscountry movement. This may also apply to fuel consumption. So I don't know if it the gap between both types is that big, although for long-range patrolling on roads wheels are for sure better.


And for that wheeled vehicles is the best option. They are also great for rapid deployment over long distances, especially if one creates a force that relies on as few types of vehicles as possible. A good example are Stryker brigades compared to the standard US heavy brigades.

If I had to pick a specific vehicle I would suggest the Patria AMV.

True. I was going to show off the AMV too..


What type of weapons do these Maoist rebels have?

They used small mortars 60-81 mm, RPG's and heavy machinguns 7.62 so far as their main fire support. AK's and some SKS rifles with an odd Dragunov thrown in are the mainstay. Mines and increasingly IED's pose a thread to the Army traffic. There are unconfirmed rumours of some better ATM in the hands of the Maoists.

Usally they move on foot, horse or motorcycles but also in Jeeps. Due to their swift attacks and speedy retreats both isolated army posts and small supply convoys are suffering considerably...


As a good deal of your partners forces are tied down in Pastunistan your help is greatly needed..

Cheers
OA

[Husar]

Being an armchair general with no real knowledge of the whole subject, maybe I can suggest you exchange the tyres of non-tracked vehicles with Mattracks (http://www.mattracks.com/) if they can carry the weight, otherwise they should do for of my future personal little tank.:2thumbsup:

[AggonyDuck]

Yes. from what I've read they require less maintenance - although I might add that demanding crosscountry driving - usually done by tracked vehicles -greatly increases the chance of getting stuck and the likelyhood of breaking someting. Wheeled vehicles traditionally stayed on roads and good ground, in short staying away from risky crosscountry movement. This may also apply to fuel consumption. So I don't know if it the gap between both types is that big, although for long-range patrolling on roads wheels are for sure better.


Modern 8x8 wheeled vehicles have very similar crosscountry performance to tracked vehicles. The eight wheels divide the weight better than four wheels and modern suspension systems allow driving through rough terrain. Only when the ground is soft do the wheeled vehicles have worse performance. But on the other hand wheeled vehicles will not be immobilized from a flat tire, while a tracked vehicle is unable to move when a track is broken.

[Oleander Ardens]

Modern 8x8 wheeled vehicles have very similar crosscountry performance to tracked vehicles.

They have come close, but only in the lower and medium spectrum of crosscountry terrain. In heavily broken and steep environment the fare clearly worse.


Only when the ground is soft do the wheeled vehicles have worse performance

The are far behind tracked ones in sand, mud and snow. Their ground pressure is compared to a similar 8x8 so much better...


But on the other hand wheeled vehicles will not be immobilized from a flat tire, while a tracked vehicle is unable to move when a track is broken

True but already small weapons fire can puncture their wheels, and heavy machine guns have a great time to flatten a 8x8. A tracked vehicle with a tank skirt like the CV90 can just be mobilitykilled by well aimed RPG's, ATGM's, ATM's and stronger IED's. So wheeled platforms are easily mobility-restrained but very hard to mobility-kill, while tracked ones are hard to stop, but than they are stopped for good.

@Husar: Yes, those tracks are great to give a very light and light vehicles far better mobility in difficult situations, but currently there are no suitable models on the market to sustain 20t. Personally I think this tracks would be a great idea if properly implemented, as they would allow you to tailor your vehicle to the tactical situation...

My fav fun vehicle...

http://www.viercraft.at/index.php?id=vacirraupe

[Oleander Ardens]

I'm going to post some more information about Shastan, the land where you should restore order..

This pictures gives a good impression of the central part of the mountain ranges running from southeast to the northwest.

http://www.ewpnet.co.uk/altai/valley.jp

http://www.reise-weblog.de/50226711/images/annapura-thumb.jpg

This ones suit the southfacing parts of the mountains and the hilly regions in front of them

http://maurice.strahlen.org/altai/pics/altai.jpg

http://bilder.csiewert.de/db_See_im_Altai_37921.jpg

http://bilder.csiewert.de/db_Serpentinen_38191.jpg

Between the rocky mountains of central Shastan and the wide plains of the northeast

http://www.senckenberg.de/images/content/forschung/abteilung/palaeontologie/palzool3/sibirien/altai_gebirge


The northeast plains

http://www.mongolei.de/bilder/bo/Bussardnest_in_der_mongolischen_Steppe.JPG

The south of Shastan

http://bilder.bodenkunde.info/Siberia/assets/images/South_Taiga_Plotnikovo_inside_with_brook_.jpg

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/biomes/TAIGA/taiga.air.gif

Hope you got a better picture of the operational envrionment...

[Husar]

A bunch of Apaches and some Tigers for novelty value I'd say, they shouldn't get stuck anywhere.~D
I mean, there are so many woods, it could be hard to get through them with tanks, so a few helicopters couldn't hurt instead of sending thousands of soldiers into the woods. WIth modern infrared equipment, helicopters could also find people in the bush.:2thumbsup:

[CBR]

Most of the pics are of terrain that is not suited for any type of vehicle heh.

Seems to me airmobile infantry would be better suited for most of the work. The NATO forces should be able to have good air support and drones for recon, and there would not be much need for heavy forces except at where the population density is high with better infrastructure.

Also it would be better to use helicopters for handling smaller supply needs which again means you dont want units that requires too much.

So lots of helicopters for supply and rapid deployment, light vehicles to handle the patrol, recon and light combat, and a few heavier forces would be better for the situation you are describing.

The area you are describing would be around 2 million km2. Thats like 3 times the size of Afghanistan but half the population. The use of vehicles in Afghanistan might be a good example of a similar situation to what you are describing.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-isaf-armour1.htm


CBR

[Oleander Ardens]

From your source, the Canadian American Review 2006



US military officials told RFE/RL that they did not deploy their heavy armour into Afghanistan, because the mountainous terrain was not deemed suitable for a tank campaign against guerrilla fighters. They said that the barrel of the main gun often cannot be raised enough to fire on targets at higher elevations.



The Canadian military reality 2006

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,52240.0.html

"Let loose the Cats of war"


Back to the topic:


Most of the pics are of terrain that is not suited for any type of vehicle heh.

Seems to me airmobile infantry would be better suited for most of the work. The NATO forces should be able to have good air support and drones for recon, and there would not be much need for heavy forces except at where the population density is high with better infrastructure.

Actually the south is sprinkled with farmland and villages, with some cities in between. But yes, the forests cover much of the landscape south of the mountain ranges.

I quite like your idea about the airmobile infantry, an interesting addition on the ground might be the Tankette Wiesel 2 in various configurations. Two of them fit into the C17 and one into a C53 helicopter. Love the 120mm mortar version, talk about indirect fire capability..

Of course only a small size of your forces can be airmobile, given that airtransport is very costintensive. But it might augment your potential considerably..


So lots of helicopters for supply and rapid deployment, light vehicles to handle the patrol, recon and light combat, and a few heavier forces would be better for the situation you are describing.

Looks like a good plan to me, let's see what the Maoists think :yes:

[Oleander Ardens]

A bunch of Apaches and some Tigers for novelty value I'd say, they shouldn't get stuck anywhere.
I mean, there are so many woods, it could be hard to get through them with tanks, so a few helicopters couldn't hurt instead of sending thousands of soldiers into the woods. WIth modern infrared equipment, helicopters could also find people in the bush.

Yes, helis would be a great assets, and the Army's one did a nice job so far - when they were in the air and not on the ground and spotted the foe...

[Watchman]

Huh. We're not NATO of course, but our merry men in camouflage tend to be driven around in Patria stuff (well duh - it's a partially state-owned firm AFAIK) with a merry jumble of updated old Soviet BMP-2s in the mix. The last I heard they were going to buy vintage Leopard 2s from the Germans for the heavy stuff, as the old Soviet T's are getting kinda antique.

That's small-country budget army for you, designed for sub-arctic climate and lots of woods and freshwater bodies.

The Patria and its grandpappy SISU can incidentally serve as AMOS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMOS) platforms. Now that's a funny piece of work.

[Tran]

Hmmm...if allowed, I wouldn't mind doing some carpet-bombing on Maoist forces (after doing some intelligence or recon or their locations though)