September 18, 2015 by Robert Beckhusen - War is boring

War game underlines armor's weakness

Recently, a Chinese tank company with the Nanjing Military Region went on the attack. The mission — punch through an enemy defense, press forward and eliminate any resistance along the way.

This was, of course, an exercise. And the exercise was going well. The armored beasts busted through their objective … when two enemy helicopters armed with anti-tank missiles arrived.

Within moments, the helicopters effectively “destroyed” the whole company, according to a July 25 article in the Chinese military newspaper Jiefangjun Bao Online. The paper noted the helicopter counter-attack “set off an uproar in the brigade.”

The U.S. Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office took note of the exercise in its monthly journal OE Watch. “It was … apparent that commanders were not staying abreast of recent changes in warfare,” the journal stated.

Read more

June 7, 2015: Strategy Page

China recently offered (for export) another new variant in its line of ZBL 09 8x8 wheeled armored vehicle; the VN1 vehicle launched bridge. This is an old concept that goes back to World War II. What it amounts to is a 15-20 meter (46-66 foot) bridge than can quickly be deployed from the vehicle over obstacles allowing similar (in size and weight) vehicles to quickly cross.

China introduced the ZBL line of armored vehicles in 2006 after more than a decade of development. The first model was a personnel carrier but other variants quickly followed. For example the ZBL 09 ST1 is equipped as a tank-destroyer with a high velocity 105mm gun. This appears to be a variant on the 2007 version that had a lower velocity 105mm gun that was intended to give infantry front line artillery support. The Germans called this an “assault gun” when they invented the concept (as the “Sturmgeschütz” during World War II. These vehicles are particularly useful for infantry attacking as an assault gun could quickly take out enemy opposition with one or two shells.

The assault gun version of its ZBL 09 had a smaller turret than the ST1. The larger turret of the ST1 is apparently to hold the additional recoil and fire control equipment for the more powerful and longer range 105mm gun. In 2009 there was already an artillery version of the ZBL 09, carrying a 122mm howitzer in a larger turret similar to the one used by the ST1.

Since 2012 the Chinese Army has been using the ZBL 09 with the turret and 105mm gun as a wheeled light tank. That appeared to indicate that an anti-tank version was already in the works. The ZBL 09/105mm assault gun could, with some extra training, be capable of shooting up other armored vehicles. The 105mm gun carried is not powerful enough to destroy most modern tanks, but could knock out most other armored vehicles.

The basic ZBL 09 is a 21 ton vehicle that has a crew of three and carries seven passengers. The ST1 apparently has a crew of four and weighs over 25 tons. All ZBL 09s are 8 meters (25 feet) long, three meters (9.2 feet) wide, and 2.1 meters (6.5 feet, to the hull roof) high. It's amphibious and has a top water speed of 8 kilometers an hour. On roads, top speed is 100 kilometers an hour, and max road range on internal fuel is 800 kilometers. The infantry carrier version has a turret with a 30mm autocannon.

The infantry version of the ZBL 09 entered service in 2009, and a growing number of combat brigades are being equipped with it, to operate somewhat like the American Stryker brigades. China has been developing new wheeled armored vehicles for over a decade. Until recently, these were all based on Russian designs. The ZBL 09, however, borrows more ideas from the West. Still, some of the more recent (since 2009) Russian type designs were interesting and instructive.

The Chinese have observed NATO success in Iraq with the Stryker and LAV wheeled combat vehicles. Chinese designers eventually concluded that the roomier internal layout of Western vehicles did serve a useful purpose, and the ZBL 09, and all the electronics installed in it, are an example of what the Chinese learned.

January 11, 2015: Strategy Page

Poland has ordered 13,000 120mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot, for smooth bore guns) tank gun shells from a local manufacturer for delivery by 2017. These are for Poland’s recently acquired forces of 237 second hand German Leopard 2 tanks. Poland bought some German APFSDS shells initially, but since the Cold War ended Poland has been producing APFSDS for the 125mm guns used by its T-72s, which the Leopards are replacing. Polish ammo plants will buy new manufacturing equipment to produce the 120mm APFSDS but will be able to build the shells at lower cost, and comparable quality to other nations and thus be able to grab some export business. Poland still has some locally upgraded T-72s (the PT-91) and continues to manufacturer 125mm APFSDS for these.

APFSDS weigh about 23 kg (50 pounds) and tend to be about  is 900mm (35 inches) long and use 8.1 kg (18 pounds) of slow burning explosives to propel the shell out the 120mm smooth barrel to a top speed of 1,555 meters (5,100 feet) a second. The sabots fall away after the shell leaves the barrel, leaving the 10 kg (22 pound), 25mm diameter (and 800mm long) depleted uranium or tungsten penetrator to continue on to the target (up to 5,000 meters away).

Most modern 120mm tank guns fire a shell that uses a smaller 25mm “penetrator.” The 25mm rod of tungsten (or depleted uranium) is surrounded by a “sabot” that falls away once the shell clears the barrel. This gives the penetrator higher velocity and penetrating power. This is the most expensive type of 120mm shell and already comes in several variants. There is APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) and APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot, for smooth bore guns). The armor piercing element of discarding sabot rounds is less than half the diameter of the shell and made of very expensive, high density metal. Its smaller size enables it to hit the target at very high speeds, up to 1,900 meters (5,900 feet) a second. This is the most common type of anti-tank shell and is constantly being improved. Thus in the 1970s depleted (nonradioactive) uranium was introduced by the U.S. to replace the slightly lighter tungsten penetrators. The depleted uranium penetrators were more effective.

About twenty armies now have 120 mm and 125mm smoothbore guns which can obtain slightly more penetrating power using depleted uranium instead of tungsten. While composite armor was developed to defeat APDS but it was not always successful. HEAT (High Explosive Anti Tank) rounds have fallen from favor because their success depends on hitting a flat surface on the tank. Modern tanks have few flat surfaces. On the plus side, HEAT shells must be fired at lower speeds, are good at any range, and many are now built with a fragmentation capability to make them useful for anti-personnel work. The AP type shells are less effective at longer ranges. Similar to HEAT, more expensive and still in use, is the HESH (High Explosive Squash Head) shell. This item hits the tank, the explosive warhead squashes, and then explodes. The force of the explosion goes through the armor and causes things to come lose and fly about the inside of the tank (the spall effect). The vehicle may appear unharmed, but the crew and much of its equipment are not. Works at any range but is somewhat defeated by spaced and composite armor.

Then there is the controversy over the health issues associated with depleted uranium, which is a metal that is one of the heaviest known. It is very effective at punching holes through enemy tanks. It is so named because all the harmful radiation has been "depleted" from it as a by-product of manufacturing nuclear fuel.  But because it's still considered a "nuclear" material it is controlled by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In effect, these anti-tank shells are technically "nuclear weapons." U.S. export laws had to be changed to allow the export of depleted uranium ammo.

Early on there were rumors that depleted uranium created dangerous levels of radiation when handled or used. In reality, depleted uranium is no more toxic than tungsten and other heavy metals. It is true that when depleted uranium penetrators go through armor, and come under enormous stress, they do produce brief, but high, bursts of radiation. This seems to be because a chunk of depleted uranium will absorb most of the radiation it produces through normal decay, which it cannot do once shattered. However, it is unlikely that the resulting "pulse" of radiation will cause injury or illness, particularly given the damage produced by the explosive effect and shell fragments inside a vehicle hit. The Poles don’t have any depleted Uranium, so they will be using tungsten.

Mar. 9, 2014 - By BARBARA OPALL-ROME – Defense News

Revamp Agendas in Common Bid To Boost Firepower, Maneuver

TEL AVIV — Tighter budgets and changing threats are forcing specialized Israeli Army corps to temper parochial ambitions to bolster a smaller, fire-fortified, combined arms maneuvering force.

Just a year ago, Israel’s Artillery Corps was crafting a new mission statement and doctrine to transition from its traditional role of fire support to the leading ground force provider of standoff attack. Its Fire2025 master plan aspired to one-shot, one-target accuracy at increasingly long ranges, with saturation fire relegated to second-tier status.

At the same time, the Armored Corps was championing its own agenda to sustain outyear production of main battle tanks, mitigate downsizing and preserve its capacity for conventional war.

But reassessments in recent months are accenting a more interdisciplinary strategy for training, organizing and equipping Israel’s future ground force, seeking benefits beyond corps-specific parochial agendas, officers here said.

“In the end, we determined that as an integral and central component of the ground forces, we needed to view ourselves first and foremost as a supporting organization to enable the Army to achieve its objectives,” said Brig. Gen. Roy Riftin, commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Artillery Corps. “In parallel, we will build capabilities to enable accurate means of standoff attack.”

In a late February interview, he acknowledged that the return to traditional support priorities “was not easy to swallow” by members of Israel’s gunner community.

For years, artillery proponents, including Riftin, had envisioned network-enabled ground-based systems as an option to airpower for a spectrum of scenarios demanding precision standoff attack.

“We’re still pursuing the vision,” Riftin said of revamped plans. “But in the end, I understood that the Corps will be much more significant if we continued to accent the element of support.”

Brig. Gen. Shmuel Olansky, IDF chief armored officer, conceded similar resistance among the close-knit armored community to downsizing armored reserve forces by several brigades. He also acknowledged that plans to infuse all armored battalions with organic infantry capabilities optimized for urban war has sparked accusations that the Corps was sacrificing its capacity for conventional war.

“It’s emotion and a matter of pride. ... I meet often with critics — many of them are my former commanders — and I admit there are no guarantees that what we’re doing now is correct,” Olansky said. “But I’m confident that the direction we’re going in today is most appropriate for reasonable scenarios.”

Nevertheless, Olansky noted, “If, in 10 years, we face concerted, mass attack from a combination of armies...” He intentionally declined to complete the thought.

Accent on Combined Arms

By the end of 2016, each active-duty armored battalion will have its own organic specialty company composed of reconnaissance, observation and mortar platoons. An identical plan will be implemented later for the reserve force, Olansky said.

New combat support specialty companies will replace older-model tank companies slated for retirement. They’ll be trained to operate “shoulder-to-shoulder” with main battle tanks as an integral part of armored forces optimized for maneuvering in urban and heavily forested arenas.

“We don’t need to build a force only for mass maneuvering war, but for what we call war between wars where the enemy is less visible, less likely to engage us directly, yet lethally equipped with advanced anti-tank missiles,” Olansky said. “This means our future force must be flexible to transition rapidly to different warfare scenarios. It means we need more precise tank rounds and the ability to respond in real time to targeting data coming from various sources.”

Col. Nadav Lotan, commander of the IDF’s 7th Armored Brigade, said new capabilities provided by specialty mortar platoons extend the battalion’s operational envelope.

“Mortars will be able to reach ranges that the tank doesn’t have. It’s a significant boost in operational effectiveness,” Lotan said during a recent interview in the Golan Heights.

Plans call for equipping the Armored Corps’ organic mortar forces with infantry-operated Keshet, an M113-based 120mm recoil mortar system by Elbit Systems.

Riftin is evaluating upgraded infantry maneuvers with Humvee-mounted ELM-2106 Windshield tactical radars, the IDF’s choice over the US AN/TPQ-48. Radar producer Elta Systems, a subsidiary of state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries, is expected to deliver demonstration radars by summer, and Riftin’s Artillery Corps is forming teams to operate the system alongside Keshet against rocket and mortar threats.

Good-Enough Precision Rockets

The Artillery Corps has designated a new precision rocket by state-owned Israel Military Industries (IMI) as its weapon of choice for bridging immediate needs with future plans for standoff strike.

Known here as Romach, the rockets are designed to strike within 5 meters of targets some 35 kilometers away. Once fully deployed, Romach will offer an accurate alternative to unguided rockets and artillery shells whose use — while legal under international law — is increasingly ill-suited for urban war.

Launched from a standard multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), Riftin hailed Romach as “an excellent, pragmatic solution” to shift from so-called statistic weaponry, which constitutes 95 percent of his force and is much more prone to inflicting collateral damage.

“Our need to operate in built-up areas demands across-the-board shift from statistic weaponry toward a new inventory based on precision,” Riftin said. “But since the best precision weaponry is very expensive, we need to go with cost-effective capabilities that may not be the best, but are good enough.”

Multiyear plans call for mass procure-ment of the IMI-developed system. The firm is working on supplying some 1,000 rockets to support deployment of the IDF’s first Romach battery in November.

Riftin said his organization is crafting the operational concept for Romach operations following its successful conclusion of rigorous field tests.

“It’s proven itself in terms of precision,” he said. “The range is a little shorter than we would have liked, but it still fires more or less to the boundaries of a division. And since it uses a common MLRS launcher, we don’t need to change platforms or people. The only thing we’re changing is the certification process.”

He said Romach meets parallel requirements to provide fire support for maneuvering forces and for accurate targeting of two-story structures in urban, anti-terror operations. “It’s the ideal ‘good enough’ option that allows us to straddle both worlds at a reasonable cost.

25 April 2013 Defense Studies

Eight of the SAF's Leopard 2SG MBTs and four of the Bundeswehr's Leopard 2A6 MBTs were involved in the joint live-firing exercise at the NATO-Bergen Training Area, Germany  (all photos : Sing Mindef)

Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen visited the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) troops participating in Exercise Panzer Strike at the NATO-Bergen Training Area, Germany, on 23 April 2013.

During his visit, Dr Ng was briefed on the conduct of the exercise and witnessed a successful bilateral live-firing involving the 2nd Company of the 48th Battalion of the Singapore Armoured Regiment and their German counterparts from the Bundeswehr's 33rd Panzer Battalion. Both armies had been engaged in rigorous training and exchange of pointers in the lead-up to the joint exercise, which involved the execution of tactical manoeuvres.
 

Speaking to the servicemen at the visit, Dr Ng emphasised the importance of overseas training in providing realistic and challenging training opportunities for the SAF to hone its operational readiness and extended his appreciation to them for their professionalism and dedication. Giving his thoughts on the exercise, Dr Ng said, "I think all servicemen recognise and realise that they have to optimise these very precious training resources. It makes a big difference for them, they know that that once they have done this, they are very confident that they can fire accurately on the move and they are confident as a crew. I think that is something they have achieved that cannot be taken away from them - that they feel very confident of themselves."

 

Exercise Panzer Strike is the fifth in the series and has included a bilateral live-firing component for the second consecutive year. It will involve more than 1300 armour personnel, 14 Leopard 2SG Main Battle Tanks and 11 Bionix I Infantry Fighting Vehicles. These training opportunities in Germany have helped build up the professionalism and capabilities of the SAF Armour. Due to a recent agreement, SAF Armour will now be able to double their training time in Germany.

(Sing Mindef)