Twilight 2033 Tech

[PBI]

Something else which seems to be on the rise is the move away from MBTs. Canada is already announced the mothballing of all of its tanks in favour of the Striker, the US is, from what I gather, about to/in the process of forming an experimental brigade or two with the Striker forming the primary AFV, and I've also heard the UK is taking a long, hard look at the Striker concept. We very well might see the disappearance of the tank as a major weapons system by the dawn of a new Twilight War.

ABMs are great, but along with advances in ABM tech, I think it's also plausible that nuclear delivery systems will increase in quality as well, possibly even to the point that battlefield weapons become larger, longer ranged, and have greater accuracy, so that the "old style" missiles in silos are a quaint idea that's kept alive more through nostalgia than anything else. Keep in mind that not many nukes have to fall to cause a breakdown in society, especially if enough high-powered EMPs are generated. Presumably, the society of 2033 will be even more vulnerable to a sudden total collapse of the information backbone than we are today.

 

[savage]

We're pretty vulerable today. Minor breakage in the powergrid can bring down an entire region.
- no fuel, computer, lights, machines,....tv

Perhaps heavy tanks need to transform into a different type of killing machine again. The ability to wipe out everything around you for a kilometer could be useful w/o atomics.

Savage

 

[TKalbfus]

The Striker is a light weight tank I gather, with wheels instead of treads, its armor is not as good at stopping artillery shells so in some quarters of the Army its not very popular. The typical soldier would probably rather flatten a city than to go into it and pick out the bad guys and possibly be picked off himself. The current trend seems toward making the soldier more expendible in meeting military objectives. More bullets hitting flesh instead of armor, but the theory goes since Striker is light weight it can get there faster than the M1. The best thing would be to have no people on those tanks and make them fully automated. An automated tank is more expendable, doesn't need as much armor and so can move faster and carry more munitions. Computer technology should advance quite a bit in 25 years. 25 years ago we barely had desktop computers, remember the TRS-80 by Radio Shack?

 

[Uncle Bob]

Canada has cut its military budget to the bone so all decisions they make should be viewed as financial, not tactical. That and the Leopard Is are so dangerously outdated there is little point in keeping them.

The US Army is using Strykers to motorize light infantry units, and it has very little impact on "heavy" (armored) units. BTW, the Stryker is a GM of Canada LAV III (AKA the Piranha III), a 16 ton 8x8 armored vehicle with expensive electronics.

 

[PBI]

The point is that there are some potentially very valid reasons for picking heavy LAVs, for lack of a better term. It makes "armoured" units more mobile and allows a lot of firepower to be moved around the globe without having 2 or 3 equipment sets per unit.

I'm not aruging the pros or cons. For what it's worth, I prefer an MBT to a LAV with a 120mm gun. However, we'r talking 2033, and it's more than possible, especially if all NATO does in the new timeline is to fight low-level conflicts, I can see the MBTs getting mothballed at least, in favour of the more mobile heavier LAVs and then some sort of mad scramble to re-equip as the war that would never come finds militaries all over not quite ready to fight it, similar to how the Red Army of the first timeline converted a lot of motor rifle divisions to static divisions just before the war with China began.

 

[Eamon]

The Stryker Brigades are a theory that has already failed its primary purpose. Supported by some in the Department of Defense with more political clout than combat experience. The Stryker was supposed to airlifted to the combat zone and using computer intergrated information sytems defeat the enemy.
First, the Air Force does not have enough heavy lift aircraft to lift a brigade and meet their other commintments. So the Stryker has to go to war the same way all those tanks do by sealift.
Second, as you can see the weapons of the Infantry Stryker can not defeat a tank.
While there is probably an ATGM version, missles are not as efficient in destroying tanks as tank guns.
I hope too many soldiers are not killed using these things before they are withdrawn.

 

[PBI]

We're not talking current tech, though, we're talking about how things might develop by 2033. From what I understand, however, the Strykers Canada intends to field will have 120mm guns with autoloaders on them and will replace MBTs, not APCs. The thing is, on paper, it's a valid idea, provided there's enough lift to deply the unit, though I note that there only has to be enough lift capacity to move the unit faster than by regular means for the new doctrine to be workable. And, as we all know, there's never enough capability to meet all commitments, so it all comes down to priorities. Others tasks will suffer if a Stryker/Striker equipped brigade has to be moved, but most militaries are used to such things by now

 

[vutpakdi]

Originally posted by PBI:
From what I understand, however, the Strykers Canada intends to field will have 120mm guns with autoloaders on them and will replace MBTs, not APCs.

Now why does that remind me of the old battlecruiser concept and how well that worked in practice....

Ron

 

[Jame]

Another thing to consider for World War 2029 would be "how have electronics advanced?"

Also, two questions:

1. What is an ATGM? An anti-tank grenade missile?

and

2. Are most battle electronics expensive, or just the ones put in military vehicles; further, if they are expensive, why?

 

[Uncle Bob]

The MCG (the gun-armed version of the Stryker) is not intended as an anti-tank weapon, but as a wheeled "assault gun" to support infantry attacks.
The missile armed AT vehcles have their own problems: they are no good at "hip-shooting" in meetin engagements or at attacking multiple targets. Also, HEAT warheads cannot defeat new armor (Chobham/Burlington, ERA, Electrostatic) and the slow moving missiles can be shot down by systems like the Russian Arena system.

Hypervelocity KE missiles like the American LOSAT and CKEM will eliminate these problems.

This may be solved by the next generation of missiles,

 

[bairdec]

After reading stuff about the Stryker AFV, the Stryker strikes me as an M113 on wheels. I wish the Army would re-engineer the M551 Sheridan to incorporate new tech and make the turret more reliable. The Stryker is a better replacement than the Hummer's with the four hypervelocity missles mounted on top, but still.... I hope Rummy doesn't decide to yank the M1 in favor of these things. The US needs a different SecDef if he does.

The Sheridan is kinda like a cross between the Bradley and the Sgt York AA system: a good vehicle concept at the core, but influenced way too much by breaucrats and the systems didn't work when cobbled together.

 

[Jamus]

The poor sheridan was a good idea that was poorly implimented. a light tank with a huge gun <152mm iirc>. stability issues were terrible, they would tip over when the main gun was fired if the tank were on an incline. the all aluminium hull has a bad habit of cracking under the stress of operation and is next to useless against anything bigger than a rifle. RPGs split them open like crazy. basically a useless death trap.

for the money the bradley is the best thing going imho. weapon and armor upgrades and send it back out into the world. so imma have to say in twilight 2023 there would still be tons of M2s in service with many nations and performing all sorts of roles, pretty much like the M113 is still in use going on 35+ years.


As for combat armor...my bet says after a few years of war with to repair or refit most grunts would ditch the stuff and just wear fatigues or what have you.

 

[bairdec]

I never had any problems with the hull or suspension while I drove my Sheridan (serial #016, bumper #H627) out at the NTC from '93-'94, and after about six months, I got the thing running well enough that we only had to pull pack every couple months. They are a lot of fun to drive. I could get mine just about anywhere a Hummer could go, and I pulled Hummers off of rocks on several occasions.

The ones out at the NTC are all VISMOD'd to resemble Soviet equipment, and the one I drove had the barrel chopped off and the breech removed, so I never had to do a live gunnery in it.

And yes, it's a 152mm gun.

I found an interesting site with old anecdotes earlier today at Eaglehorse.org.

 

[Eamon]

ATGM means Anti Tank Guided Missle such as TOW or Milan.
I understand Future Tech but according to Rumsfield this is it. This is going to equiping the entire army by 2033. No grav tanks but this little APC with no better armor protection than a WW2 Sherman.
As far as meeting other priorities in transporting the Stryker Brigade overseas to combat what should they do? Leave behind the Tactical Air Wing that is going to do the actual fighting while they drive around hoping there are no tanks around.
Look at the 82ABN their ready reaction force is an infantry company to be followed by an infantry BN 12 hours later. This is the best the Air Transport Command can do on short notice because these aircraft are being used all the time to support missions around the world.
Unless you spend a month on planning before shipping out the Strykers they are going to have to go by ship.

 

[PBI]

Hey, I'm not saying that the gun-armed version will be good, bad, or indifferent, just pointing out the intended use and attempting to get across that, in 20 years, technology might have advanced enough that the MBT could go the way of the battleship.

Jame, ATGM means Anti-Tank Guided Missile

The reason battlefield electronics packages are expensive is because they are purpose-designed for the military and have to meet a host of requirements that civilian electronics don't, such as durability (a vehicle or infanteer is not a happy fun place for sensitive electronics) and hardening against EMP. Additionally, the electronics have to be designed to do the job and be able to be used by soldiers with less-advanced education.

 

[PBI]

Originally posted by Eamon:
Unless you spend a month on planning before shipping out the Strykers they are going to have to go by ship.

Not neccessarily. It all depends on the doctrine used. If the idea is to be able to deploy a "mechanized" brigade (I use the term mechanized very very loosely when talking about vehicles like the Stryker) not all in one go, but faster than the traditional method of 6-8 weeks by ship, then it will work. Maybe it will take 2-3 weeks to get the entire brigade in theatre, but that's better than 6.

Don't make the mistake of fixating on current lift capabilities and doctrine to extrapolate what doctrinal changes might come about down the road. It's possible that airlift of these heavy motorised/light mechanized? brigades will have absolute priority and if aircraft have to be yanked from other missions, sucks to be those other mission commanders.

 

[Eamon]

Anywhere the US has an interest in and willing to commit troops to has an enemy with tank-heavy forces,such as Iran and North Korea. In places where the Stryker might be useful,such as stopping a genoicde in Africa (Rwanda), Congress would not approve sending in the troops.
So the ablity to quickly send in a force that could be wiped out by the enemy is no advantage. The Stryker is a political weapon. The President can now tell Congress. "Oh everything is ok. They go in quick and they get out quick. Home by Christmas. Light at the end of the tunnel. Please don't impeach me." Tanks mean that you are serious. That you are going to stay until you are finished. When the Marines were first sent to Vietnam they included 4 tanks with their infantry bn. The Johnson administration freaked when they saw the tanks. Because they had told Congress they weren't making a long time commitment in Vietnam.
When the Clinton administration was discussing the force structure to capture Amin. The sending of 4 tanks was discussed and dismissed because of preceived Congessional objections.
The Stryker is only useful as a garrison force or against an enemy so weak you might as well send UN peacekeepers instead.
This is the real doctrine of the Stryker brigades.

 

[Jamus]

cool site bairdec!!

I was in a 577 rattrig <commo version of a 113>.

 

[PBI]

Originally posted by Eamon:
Anywhere the US has an interest in and willing to commit troops to has an enemy with tank-heavy forces,such as Iran and North Korea. In places where the Stryker might be useful,such as stopping a genoicde in Africa (Rwanda), Congress would not approve sending in the troops.
So the ablity to quickly send in a force that could be wiped out by the enemy is no advantage. The Stryker is a political weapon. The President can now tell Congress. "Oh everything is ok. They go in quick and they get out quick. Home by Christmas. Light at the end of the tunnel. Please don't impeach me." Tanks mean that you are serious. That you are going to stay until you are finished. When the Marines were first sent to Vietnam they included 4 tanks with their infantry bn. The Johnson administration freaked when they saw the tanks. Because they had told Congress they weren't making a long time commitment in Vietnam.
When the Clinton administration was discussing the force structure to capture Amin. The sending of 4 tanks was discussed and dismissed because of preceived Congessional objections.
The Stryker is only useful as a garrison force or against an enemy so weak you might as well send UN peacekeepers instead.
This is the real doctrine of the Stryker brigades.

We're not talking about current day, though, not really. As I said before, but it was apparently missed, it's entirely possible that, by 2033, tanks will have lost the armour vs warhead battle and we could very well be in a situation where the firepower of a tank is still needed, but there's no longer the time available to get tanks shipped from home, so most militaries go for these heavy LAVs while possibly maintaining some sort of small heavy armour contingent at home.

And, if your argument is valid, why are airborne, airmobile, and light infantry forces still used? Those troops die just as quickly in battle as a unit equipped with Strykers or similar vehicles.

Personally, I think replacing our Leopards with Strykers is a mistake, but I'm trying not to project those feelings onto future musings. Maybe man-portable anti-tank weapons will become so powerful that the only heavy vehicles on the battlefield will be light armour and thin-skinned, as anything else would be a watse of money.

 

[TKalbfus]

I think by 2033, big guns may be obsolete. Instead every large weapon will fire missile batteries. The only guns left will be those carried by soldiers because of miniturization problems with missiles. One big exception might be battlefield lasers, by 2033 some lasers might be portable enough and powerful enough to do some damage directly. I think a battlefield laser might be very good at igniting fires at long distances, a similar role as the flame thrower but longer range. I think traditional helicopters might disappear to be replaced with vertical takeoff and landing airplanes, perhaps even fighters could do this. Aircraft carriers might go the way of the dodo, airplanes will have long enough ranges, that they can be flown from any airbase in the world to any point on the globe, that combined with their ability to land on any flat piece of ground means runways aren't needed either, just refueling stations.