Very true, and I apologise. Shouldn't think ill of a country we haven't been at war with for 195-years, and have been stauch allies for almost a century.

That'll learn me not to post before tea in the morning!

Valid point, but since there is always a PR/Media facet to warfare now, I am not so keen on the possibility of a 6 ounce grenade shell setting off a 2kg reactive armor panel. I'd prefer something smarter, like the Russian ARENA, or the Israeli Iron Fist. It can recognize a minor threat and ignore it.

Very true. And Claymores can help offset the idea of Human Waves as well. Just set 'em off and there you go.

You must be planning on dealing with itsy IEDs. 50 or 250 pounds of HE doesn't just "blow off a wheel" on a wheeled vehicle. It flips AFVs over, hurls them into buildings, blows the engine through the hood, etc, etc. Plus tires burn. Steel tracks don't. I've seen pictures of strykers with burning wheels from incendiaries, they don't make it that far before everyone bailed out and watched it burn.

And MMGs will do a number of "run flat" tires, while not doing squat to tracks.

Of course, there is a happy third option that bypasses the weaknesses of both wheels and tracks, giant robots.

take five, both of you. i dont think this is the right place to argue whats the best choice.

find some military forum if your going to play armchair generals

Or play Mechwarrior.

Funny you mentioned that. I am finishing up MW4 Black Knight... Pretty good expansion!

Much harder than MW4 though. Even on easy, I have to repeat many missions several times.

nah, black knight was boring . . try mercenaries for size, there's some really hard stuff in there *g*
if i ain't mistaken, you and your one or two lances get to defend agains 2 complete companies(each 12 making 24 mechs) in one mission x.x . .

<shrug> I am just going on what the infantry guys who transition from Brads to Strykers say. It makes sense though.

Here is a quote from here:
"US Army (Jan 3/07) – Stryker Increases Troops’ Survivability. “A 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team Soldier told [ that he survived 11 different IEDs and went home safely with the rest of his unit, recalled [Raymond Lopez, senior logistical analyst of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team Program Executive Office] with pride…. We have Strykers drive away from an IED strike with all eight tires flat, roll into the (forward operating base), get refitted with new tires and equipment and be back on the streets within hours. That’s significantly different than a tracked vehicle. An IED strike that breaks the track of a Bradley or M1A2 (Abrahams) tank will disable the vehicle for several hours until the crew can either repair the track or get the vehicle evacuated by other means. Those long hours sitting in a kill zone of an IED strike can be dangerous times for Soldiers with the enemy still watching….�

This converstion reminds me of playing Damage Incorporated, and how Richard Rouse decided that if you shoot a tracked vehicle enough with a M16 it should explode.

I don't even think you can annoy a tank with a 5.56mm NATO round. You might scratch the paint with a 7.62mm NATO, however...

i dont know, a couple of 1000 mosquito bites may well be troublesome

There is almost no way you can _destroy_ the tank with a rifle, but if you are _good_, you can still reduce the effectiveness of the tank.

Vision blocks - These are the armored glass periscopes that the crew uses to see out. You won't be able to shoot through them, but a few hits will make them very hard to see through.

Targeting systems - Visual systems that the commander and gunner use to see out and fire weapons. Even if covered in armor glass, one hit usually makes the glass opaque.

Antennas - Shoot off the antenna, and that radio's range goes from miles to feet.

I don't know for certain, but there might be parts in the suspension that a direct hit will weaken so it snaps going over the next bump.

The golden standard though, would be put a round straight down the barrel. You may not detonate the shell (probably won't) but you could damage the round to the point that _it_ wrecks the barrel as it fires.

These are all very small targets, though, you would have to be skilled, and close.

That's funny. I think I played MW4 Mercs, and I remember it being _easier_.

Well, riddle me this, then.

If we accept that an expert rifleman with a scoped rifle can, if equipped with a .50 cal rifle, explode someone's stationary head in still air from 2km away, does that mean that it might be possible for the same expert rifleman to put a .50 cal round down the main gun of a tank from 500 meters away if the main gun were pointed roughly at him?

Before, or after he dreks his Ghille Suit?

If we add a .50 rifle into the mix, the sniper may be able to put a round _through_ the barrel. Almost certainly with a .50 AP round.

Barrels are made of strong steel, but it doesn't have the same properties as armor steel.

Worst thing, the crew might not know if their barrel has been holed, until they fire a main gun round. They then discover which is stronger, the barrel, or the breech. (For their sake, I hope the breech is WAY over engineered.)

Tanks are like Space Capsules.

You sit around in them, and realize everything was made by the lowest bidder.

Not necessarily true when we're talking about things made for Uncle Sam.

armor steel is old hat, these days its cheramics with a steel mesh inside, or something of that nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

heh, even tho a toilet comes in a 10x what a household pay, it could still be the lowest bidder...

Meh, deleted because I didn't really add anything to the discussion...

the hardest part in that game was getting it to be so you can stay neutral and own your very own planet like wolfs dragoons *g*

as for tanks . . german tanks are still superior! ò,Ó

Any DATs or former DATs in here? Please settle this.

I certainly hope so. Friend of mine deploys next month as a driver in one of Canada's shiny new Leopard-IIs.

deploys where? or is that a military secret?

Afganistan. Where else would Canada's shiny new Leopard-IIs be deploying?

Our troops have had the job of holding the place together after the US did the ADHD thing and got distracted by Iraq.

Former DAT here.

My understanding is that the Leo2 and the M1A1 have similar ratings for armor and firepower. The M1A1 has a very marginal edge on speed, but the Leo2 seems to break down less and gets better gas mileage (because of having a standard diesel engine vs a turbine). The Leo2 has somewhat better anti-mine protection. So they're pretty close to a tie. If you value cheaper operating expenses more go with the Leo2; but if you value a longer track record in combat go with the Abrams.

YMMV.

Reliability is an important thing in the Canadian Armed Forces. We operate in some of the harshest enviroments in the world.

Winnipeg, for example.

ah yes, afghanistan. the forgotten conflict. norway to have troops there. i think its the first time they are deployed on foreign soil without blue helmets.

as for the leo-2, i think the are some around these parts as well. dont think any of them are deploy down there tho. to few and to expensive.

and given the restless bear at our northern border...

Good, when it's up to CANADA to hold things together militarily, you know things have gone downhill damned fast!

We have the training for it, but not the numbers.

do anyone have the numbers these days? i can really see how corps got their independence...

The US. Gotta love that Military-Industrial Complex!

It's just that Canada has never had a standing military of any size. High-training, yes, but not big. Militia ("National Guard" for you US folks), on the other hand, fairly decent sized, yes.

Invading Canada would be like having a land war in Asia. Just a big mistake. We also share one of Russia's greatest Generals.

I think the Russians actually won this round for pure anti infantry chewing capabilities. The BMPT has a pair of 30mm cannons, and a pair of 30mm grenade launchers designed so they can fire at a steep enough angle to target RPG launchers on rooftops. The Russians actually learned something in Chechnya.

Still doesn't hold a candle to Canada's "Tim Horton's" technology!

The Americans have 26,000 boots on the ground in Afghanistan.

Canada has... 2,500... something about your theory doesn't hold up.

Hmmmm I bet this could be adapted to work in a panther assault cannon.

OK, sorry, I should have phrased that better.

To the Canadian Public (Myself included), it feels like Canada's had to hold the damned country together while the US has "Retasked" themselves to Iraq and forgot about Afganistan completely.

Should give the reasoning behind that thing as well.

OK, Canada gets both US and Canadian TV even when all you have is an Antenna when you live in Southern Canada. With Cable or Satelite, you get both no matter where you are.

So, on Canadian News, we see flag-drapped coffins with the Maple Leaf, then the US portion comes on and all that's said is about the "Major in-roads made in Iraq.". The US News comes on, and all you hear about is Iraq.

Now, do that for a few years.

Even some folks coming back from The Sandbox feel like Canada is the only one holding things together. Although they do have big smiles about all the "Contraband" they're able to hock to the US forces in Afganistan in exchange for some really cool stuff.

Look at WWI. IIRC, population 7 million, 600,000 men under arms.

So, has Canada decided to bring it's own helicopters yet? How did those LAVs work out?

I think that's just part and parcel with how Canada sees its military working though. Lets face it, we've never been front and center in a significant conflict. Canada's collective memory, naturally focus' on what we are doing however, oftentimes to disproportionate effect. Read a 10th grade Canadian history textbook and you'll walk away with the idea that Canada 'won' Vimy Ridge. We ignore the fact that there were iirc 60,000 British and I think a full brigade of French fighting in the same battle. They made huge gains too.

Of course this makes sense. Canadian history teachers are going to teach Canadian history. Still though, it's important to think about how it may be colouring our perceptions.

Nice use of the bold tag there.

I still insist that it's the "Tim Horton's" technology that's kept Afganistan together.

Well, at least Soldier's Morale up.

The current estimate is 33,000 american soldiers in Afghanistan.

Technically, that would be 66,000 boots (discounting the statistically insignificant number of soldiers missing one or both feet.)

I just imagine our beloved vice president duck hunting with one of these bad boys and "accidentally" shooting his friend in the face...

First rule of combat: "Don't go hunting with Dick Chaney"

Second rule of combat: "Kill the Mage"...

Also I expect that a lot of the American's in Afghanistan aren't there to actually deal with Afghanistan. They're pre-deployed and in reserve in case something BAD happens in Pakistan. Bad on the scale of the Pakistani govt. collapsing. That's one country they can't afford to have go rogue.

I love the way these things get so off track. (pun intended). The subject was the shotgun round for a MBT. Call it a shotgun round, grape shot, cannister shot, what ever you call it, it is a bad day for whoever is getting shot at.

@ any DATs: Is this round part of the standard payload of a MBT or does it have certain "requirements" that need to be met before it is loaded onboard? If it is a part of the SP, how many are on board and when are they used?

I can see them being used in urban warfare just as easy as not. That big ass ball traveling that fast will go through most cinderblock walls, maybe not all the way through a house but would clear a floor at a time.

I left the Army back in '93, so my tactics may be out of date. We did have an equivalent round back then (maybe the same round?) which we referred to as 'Beehive', and the standard loadout called for a couple rounds, but not many. Once out of Behive, we were supposed to use HEAT, and shoot low in front of troop formations to kick up spall. Of course, using the coax or .50 was preferable to either option most of the time because we would want to conserve our Heat rounds for light anti-armor if possible.

Are there any more recent DATs out there with more up-to-date info?