裝甲部隊輕量化

回應本題 自選底色↑ 返 回

flak 　於　2002/08/19 13:15
裝甲部隊輕量化

如果30年後的歷史學者要回顧裝甲部隊在21世紀的歷史的話，一定會作下一個結論：「科索夫衝突後，主要國家的陸軍展開了輕量化的變革」。

科索夫衝突前的波斯灣戰爭恰好是裝甲部隊重量化的最高峰，美國在前線緊急將M1戰車的裝甲更換成衰變鈾，使得重量提高到近70噸。

而在科索夫衝突中，雖然裝甲部隊沒有出戰，但不論在支援老鷹特遣隊的部署，或是維和任務中，美國都發現裝甲部隊空運與困難地形運動的困難。因此在Douglas A. MacGregor與Donald Kagan「擊潰方陣」一書的倡議下，美國開始IBCT的規劃，並替未來裝甲車輛定下C-130空載的先天限制，展開一連串的破四重，立四輕的轉型變革。

在英國與法國這兩個也常常海外有事的國家也紛紛有所迴響。法國陸軍很早就有輪型裝甲車與輕裝甲車的編制（不像美國只有海軍陸戰隊才有），所以雖然目前沒有新的中裝部隊出現，但未來的規劃也朝向FCS發展。英國和美國一樣，原本都沒有中裝部隊，反而有輕裝（美國有M551，英國有蠍式）與重裝部隊，所以開始研究塑膠戰鬥偵搜車。

英國的塑膠戰鬥偵搜車最近安裝了升降式感測器。就像潛艦的潛望鏡一樣，甚至像先進潛望鏡一樣有數位錄影功能，可以快速旋轉一圈後再降下分析，與攻擊直昇機的作戰方式類似。另外，英國可能會進一步建造碳纖維車取代目前的玻璃纖維車。

傳統重陸軍主義的德國終於也加入這個潮流，下一代的步兵戰鬥車Panther已經確定重量不能超過A400M的載重。不過A400M顯然要大一點，所以重量限制可以到32噸。Panther將使用30/35公釐砲，並可能預設就擁有升降式感測器。

NO:740_1
flak 　於　2002/08/19 13:23
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

不過，任何潮流都會出現反潮流，所以我們也來看看重裝部隊的反攻（或掙扎？）。

美國M1戰車最為人詬病的是引擎，所以已經有計畫要把引擎換成更省油的新渦輪引擎。英國挑戰者戰車最為人詬病的大概就是火力，所以英國政府開始研究換裝萊茵金屬120滑膛砲的可能性。當然，皇家兵工廠是第一個反對的，至少還得吵上一陣子吧。

以色列加重步兵戰鬥車的作法已經興起一股潮流，連俄羅斯也學著作一些重底盤的戰鬥車。不過最近出現一種特別的支援戰車。基本上是T72的底盤。但特別的是換成中口徑機砲與四管反戰車飛彈的砲塔，提供部隊支援火力。

美國的M1也有一些改良的提案。目前M1最頭痛的是不適用於城市戰，所以有人研究將榴彈機槍之類的武裝換到戰車上。不過最炫的還是反狙擊系統，可以遙控50機槍反擊狙擊手開槍的地方。

NO:740_2
simonxu 　於　2002/08/19 13:58
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

以車臣的例子，輪型裝甲車與輕裝甲車的生存性很難看好。
NO:740_3
Toga(小毛代) 　於　2002/08/19 14:21
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>>美國的M1也有一些改良的提案。目前M1最頭痛的是不適用於城市戰，所以有人研究將榴彈機槍之類的武裝換到戰車上。不過最炫的還是反狙擊系統，可以遙控50機槍反擊狙擊手開槍的地方。

七月份的Janes IDR有介紹(這一本是航空展免費贈閱的,賺到了! :P),叫做Urban Abrams,看起來就像是把五零機槍架在M1的砲盾上,裝彈量200發,可共用主砲的射控系統.

NO:740_4
吱吱鼠 　於　2002/08/19 14:37
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

其實只要夠便宜...
輕裝甲車生存性低又怎樣...
重戰車裝甲再厚也擋不住反坦克飛彈的頂攻...
輕裝甲車比起來還有快速部署與較高機動性，成本也較低...
所以重裝師勢必被裁撤，取而代之的必然是中裝師與輕裝師...
日後陸戰的主力會是：輕裝甲車+砲兵+步兵+旋翼師...
NO:740_5
lazycat.com 　於　2002/08/19 17:30
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

flak 兄：
Challenger的旋膛火砲威力未必很小，精度卻要比光膛砲高，GULF WAR中最遠距離擊毀T72的紀錄好像就是由它創下的，我個人認爲最大的缺點是它太重了！
NO:740_6
flak 　於　2002/08/19 19:38
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>Challenger的旋膛火砲威力未必很小，精度卻要比光膛砲高，GULF WAR中最遠距離擊毀T72
>的紀錄好像就是由它創下的，我個人認爲最大的缺點是它太重了！

旋膛砲發射的APFSDS因為比較「粗短」，所以穿甲力會比光膛砲小。
最大射程好像會比較長，但對正面裝甲的有效射程還是比較短。

NO:740_7
小邱 　於　2002/08/19 20:13
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

喔 一定要提那場挑戰者一式用L11A5 120mm炮在5200m擊殺T-72的事情ㄇ......
flak大大
>英國政府開始研究換裝萊茵金屬120滑膛砲的可能性
依據老英的皇家兵工廠跟陸軍傳統固執個性....換滑膛炮可有的吵了
滑膛炮雖然穿甲力高 但相對來說彈種較少 任務彈性較低...(除非120mm APAM出現)
而且如果一換炮 皇家兵工廠以後靠啥過活(彈種減少 收益減少)
再者 目前L30 120mm/55倍徑線膛炮還算是威力驚人...更動可能性不大
而且英國跟德國....看起來希望就不大^^

>以色列加重步兵戰鬥車的作法<---這是指馳車ㄇ?120mm步兵戰車????

>M1最頭痛的是不適用於城市戰
建議像馳車一樣把可以裝的都裝上去 甚至是M140 60mm迫炮

>反狙擊系統，可以遙控50機槍反擊狙擊手開槍的地方
可見老以是有遠見的

lazycat.com大大
>Challenger最大的缺點是它太重了
這個重到未必....現在隨便弄台主戰車都是那種重量
主要的問題一定是在大家看不到的地方
喔 我可沒說他的射控整合有問題喔
不過挑戰者2E好像有針對這個問題作改良

NO:740_8
黃金左腳 　於　2002/08/24 01:45
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

一年前老英挑戰者二型戰車的火力確實出現過重大危機, 其最具威力的衰竭鈾穿甲彈被視為嚴重公害, 而遭到環保人士立即除役的強大壓力, 問題是挑戰者二型戰車上其他配備的彈種的威力皆遠遠不及衰竭鈾穿甲彈, 而全新設計, 威力可以取代衰竭鈾穿甲彈的鎢合金穿甲彈又遲遲無法正式量產服役..........

不知道這個問題現在解決了沒有......

NO:740_9
阿尼 　於　2002/08/24 02:02
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

歐美裝甲部隊輕量化之目的為何？並非使用在本土防衛，而在入侵與教訓弱國用。
自從蘇聯解體之後，美、英、德基本上已無可入侵其國土實力的超強犯意敵人來解放他們，歐陸諸國也不用擔心坦克大戰，而在沒有外患下自然就會想要跑到世界各地去執行他們所謂的正義行動、正義防衛等聯軍任務，通常被執行的國家不是沒有強大的國防就是海陸空已經被打的不成人樣，所有在衛星與無人飛機、E8 偵察機上看的到的敵重型武器都被毀，此大量空運而至的輕量化的裝甲車才投入戰場。
NO:740_10
靖海 　於　2002/08/24 04:27
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

是不是大規模集團推進的戰術思想不適宜了呢？近期的戰爭好像都是複雜地形下的小股衝突，大傢伙使喚不開。是不是？
NO:740_11
小邱 　於　2002/08/24 13:54
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

不 應該這麼說
小型衝突各大國唯一能和平介入的理由是:維和
在維和任務與戰鬥任務中所需求的武器是不同滴
如果大傢伙使喚不開 那麼現在在追尋下一代主戰車的國家都是傻瓜了
維和的時候不可能大剌剌的全投入重裝部隊下去(殺雞焉用牛刀)
標準典範就是老法的AMX-10RC 老義的人馬座 乃至於老美的M1114
而且數次下來 也證明到裝甲車來的比重戰車適合這種任務
NO:740_12
chin 　於　2002/08/24 15:11
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

老法的AMX-10RC.... 一直都很欣賞這台輪型裝甲車 ^_^
國軍也可考慮研發這種搭載105mm砲的偵察車，用以取代年代久遠的M41，
至於新的MBT.... 路要一步一步走，先把輪型裝甲車玩好再談！

NO:740_13
黃金左腳 　於　2002/08/25 14:46
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

老法的AMX-10RC.... 一直都很欣賞這台輪型裝甲車 ^_^
國軍也可考慮研發這種搭載105mm砲的偵察車，用以取代年代久遠的M41

A: AMX-10RC在法國也已經屬於待退之身了, 五到十年內便會被法國版的FCS新型機動載具所取代; 台灣若想採購或是取得授權生產此款輪型載具的話, 只怕會重蹈當年採購法國APILIAS火箭筒的覆轍......

NO:740_14
黃金左腳 　於　2002/08/25 15:24
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

http://giat.angie.fr/asp/us/pdf/us_ftech_vbci.pdf

AMX-10系列的取代者, VBCI機動載具的性能諸元全覽表; 其駕駛, 車掌與炮手之對外觀測潛望鏡上均號稱擁有抗致盲雷射的能力, 是在下覺得最為印象深刻且值得國軍取法的一點, 畢竟, 咱們的老對頭在致盲雷射的發展上可是屬於先驅之列的........

NO:740_15
黃金左腳 　於　2002/08/25 16:09
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

老法GIAT工業集團1999年對未來輪型戰鬥載具所作的概念研發: ERBC計劃

設計目標 (好像連雷克勒主力戰車也是其長遠取代目標之一, 好氣魄.....):

1. To complete the current combat system consisting of vehicles ranging from the light armoured vehicle (VBL) to the Leclerc main battle tank by systems adapted to varied missions taking into account the new capabilities related to battle field digitisation. These vehicles will ensure intelligence, combat or intervention missions in a wide variety of operational situations.


2. With a limited weight and easily projectable by air, they will especially have the capability to:

• efficiently undertake combat in difficult environments such as urban zones,
(能在複雜困難環境勝任遂行有效作戰, 例如城鎮戰)

• fire on varied targets not necessarily in direct view,
(無須直接觀測瞄準便能向各式目標開火, 這大概是結合了舉升式觀瞄系統, 聯合網路作戰體系, 光纖導引飛彈所獲致的成果)

• ensuring protection for the crews.
(確保乘員安全的主被動式防護力)

技術特色:
This work, financed by the DGA (Délégation Générale pour lArmement) and on equity capital have allowed us to cover a wide range of vehicle concepts ranging from 16 to 25 tonnes.
(為求利於戰術空運起見, ERBC各系列車型的空重將介於16至25噸之間, 使A400M戰術運輸機能一次攜行一至兩輛ERBC)

This work also showed that to reach the goals fixed, innovative solutions would be required:

• new system architecture solutions

• medium calibre gun (火炮部分目前暫定為新近研發的CTA40MM無彈鏈機炮, 和現有同口徑機炮相較, CTA的體型更為緊緻, 重量更輕, 系統結構更為簡易且更為精準貫穿力大. 性能細節請見:http://giat.angie.fr/asp/us/pdf/us_ftech_40cta.pdf) + optical fibre-guided missiles (目前尚不知此一光纖導引飛彈出自何處, 不過應該是從獨眼巨人光纖導引戰術飛彈家族衍生而來.)

• multispectral stealth solutions,
(多頻譜{雷達, 紅外線, 毫米波......}匿蹤性能)

• combination of several means of protection: armouring + countermeasures + active protection
(多重防護: 先進裝甲套件+電子反制+主動防護系統)

• electrical transmission for mobility,
(類似老美FCS的戰場指管通情網路作戰體系概念......)

• decision aids to lighten the crews workloads.

Many solutions recommended today must be studied in more depth and validated via technological and system studies, and demonstrators.

NO:740_16
小邱 　於　2002/08/25 22:02
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

1.VBCI的後方空間模組化 證明了未來陸上武器如果不搞模組化 那麼就等著遭到淘汰吧
2.VBCI號稱抗致盲雷射???該不會真印證上次跟主編聊到 未來車輛可能都會裝上過濾鏡的事吧 不過 致盲雷射的研製 看來的確使老法有防備心理了
3.VBCI的FCS款已經有個譜了ㄇ?
NO:740_17
flak 　於　2002/09/12 12:25
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

許多人質疑中裝部隊的生存性都是著重在面對重裝部隊的脆弱性。但中裝部隊以致於往後的Objective Force是用另外一個眼光看待這件事：如果你能在50公里外就發現並監控敵重裝部隊，則敵我雙方的比較起碼是對等的。而等到我方擁有50公里以上射程的GMLRS、NetFires、CAS時，火力的優勢是在我們這邊，敵軍滿車的120砲於我何有哉？

所以中裝部隊的重心在兩個地方，第一是營級偵搜兵力的長程偵察能力，這重心便是在UAV，故美軍將成為第一個大量配發戰術UAV的陸軍（以色列的UAV似乎是受空軍管轄），第二是支援步兵的Combined Force，因為城鎮、叢林、山地戰時的步兵偵搜能力是很難被其它武器取代的。

這個新聞是美國陸軍的中裝部隊已經配發第一個UAV單位，另一個值得注意的是中裝部隊的原文IBCT已經變成SBCT了。
First Shadow TUAV System Fielded with Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Ft. Lewis

(Source : AAI Corp. ; issued Sept. 10, 2002)

HUNT VALLEY, Maryland---The U.S. Army’s new Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) at Ft. Lewis, Washington, has fielded the RQ-7A Shadow Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) system as part of its training preparation for full operational readiness by December 2002.

The Shadow TUAV system fielded in August is from a low rate initial production lot delivered by AAI Corporation, prime contractor and systems integrator for the RQ-7A program.

The Second Infantry Division’s troops put the first Shadow TUAV system into service at the Yakima Training Center in the state of Washington. By mid-month, the Shadow system had flown more than 50 hours.

AAI Corporation, located in Hunt Valley, Maryland, is a subsidiary of United Industrial Corporation.

After 17 flights the troops are happy with the Army’s first tactical UAV to complete Initial Operation Test and Evaluation (IOT&E;). Reports from the field indicate that the soldiers find the system easy to set up and get into the air. “The Shadow system is user friendly… simple to learn and operate,” according to one of the sergeants in the TUAV platoon.

The Shadow TUAV is the first tactical unmanned aerial vehicle system to successfully complete IOT&E;, which was accomplished in 28 months following contract award. The Shadow system is currently awaiting the IOT&E; formal report, which sets the stage for a full-rate production announcement anticipated in September 2002.

Each system includes four aerial vehicles, two ground control stations, two ground data terminals, a hydraulic launcher, a tactical automatic landing system, and an aerial vehicle transport. The Shadow TUAV provides brigade commanders with highly mobile target acquisition, battle damage assessment, and battle management capabilities.

In addition to another system currently at Ft. Lewis, additional Shadow TUAV systems will be fielded at Ft. Hood and Ft. Lewis later this year.

The Shadow TUAV system is the latest in the more than 15-year history of tactical unmanned aircraft systems at AAI Corporation. In addition to its role in the Pioneer UAV, which has seen combat with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, the company also produces the Shadow 400 and the Shadow 600 systems, which are in service in European and Asian countries.

NO:740_18
小邱 　於　2002/09/12 14:22
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

Stryker Brigade Combat Team ?
是Stryker還是Striker
如果是Striker的話 應該要譯作....
旅級快速打擊戰鬥群.......(我亂翻的)

>而等到我方擁有50公里以上射程的GMLRS、NetFires、CAS時，火力的優勢是在我們這邊，敵軍滿車的120砲於我何有哉？

這件事情要在台灣發生...不知要等到民國幾年......

NO:740_19
黃金左腳 　於　2002/09/13 00:40
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

許多人質疑中裝部隊的生存性都是著重在面對重裝部隊的脆弱性。但中裝部隊以致於往後的Objective Force是用另外一個眼光看待這件事：如果你能在50公里外就發現並監控敵重裝部隊，則敵我雙方的比較起碼是對等的。而等到我方擁有50公里以上射程的GMLRS、NetFires、CAS時，火力的優勢是在我們這邊，敵軍滿車的120砲於我何有哉？


A:問題在於目前世上並非只有老美在玩長程精準火力的研發，歐洲，俄國，中共，南非等國同樣也再現有的火砲／自走炮／多管火箭體系上搞長程精準反裝甲火力的研發，有些產品的預定有效打擊範圍比老美所宣傳的50公里以上還遠得多，可達60甚至80公里以上......

面對敵人新式長程精準火力威脅，老美中裝部隊有何科技上的明顯優勢，足以替代傳統重裝部隊的防護力，以更低的死傷卻更迅速有效的方式完成任務，確實有詳加探討闡明的價值，當敵人同樣以UAV在戰場上進行情報蒐集與偵察鎖定任務，麾下的自走炮／重砲／多管火箭群亦配備射程可達五十至一百公里之間的長程精準頂攻反裝甲彈種時，老美的新型中裝部隊有何能耐「只許老美四五十公里外開扁，不許敵軍六七十公里外先攻」？？若美軍中裝部隊有能耐把握做到這點，重裝師自可淘汰；但問題是即使老美神功蓋世能做到這點，也不代表其他國家也能依樣畫葫蘆以淘汰重裝部隊，今日無導引的MLRS已經非同凡品，價格已非大多老美盟國所能承擔大量採購，未來具精確導引能力的GMLRS、NetFires、CAS等多管反裝甲武器系統會是何等天價不難想見；對大多數國家而言，想用此等級武器系統去全面淘汰重裝甲部隊實屬遙不可及的夢想。

NO:740_20
flak 　於　2002/09/13 10:08
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>歐洲，俄國，中共，南非等國同樣也再現有的火砲／自走炮／多管火箭體系上搞長程精準
>反裝甲火力的研發
沒有的，大概只有法國155公釐砲的終端導引彈頭勉強算是一族。
注意這是兩個機動部隊的廝殺，一般的火箭與自走砲是效用很有限的。
>只許老美四五十公里外開扁，不許敵軍六七十公里外先攻
當然不是。問題是，當敵軍六七十公里先攻時，你需要一個八九十公里先攻的部隊，還是滿營的120砲？
當海戰第一次出現魚雷時，許多主要海軍國家紛紛發展驅逐艦以保護他們的巨艦。結果驅逐艦本身也成為優秀的魚雷平台，反而加速巨艦時代的沒落。
當敵軍一樣擁有強大的一又四分之一噸「長程砲兵」時，他們一樣會思考這個問題：那我的戰車要拿來幹嘛？一樣淘汰掉對手的重裝部隊。
NO:740_21
Skywalker-Luke 　於　2002/09/13 19:10
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

代貼文

記得以前与toga兄在全防就臺灣是否需要MBT討論過這個問題，現在看小弟當時構想的編制和設想与美軍的想法近似，呵呵。隨著SLID的服役，美國人打算在所有的車輛和艦船上安裝，輕量戰車的防護力將与MBT相差無幾。
Simonxu

NO:740_22
小邱 　於　2002/09/21 00:55
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

底下這一篇janes的報導是在敘述輪車在軍火市場的佔有率提高
其中講到了輪車之所以被世界廣為採用的原因不外乎兩點
1.維和任務的施行
2.保養維護費較低
3.重量輕運輸方便
也由於C-130是不少國家目前的主力運輸機
履帶車實在是無法上去這些機種
輪型車於是成為需要快速移動的主力
最後也談到輪車目前跟履帶車輛也在取得相互的平衡

The growing worldwide market for wheeled armoured personnel carriers

By Christopher F Foss, Editor, Janes Armour and Artillery

One of the major market trends in recent years with regard to armoured vehicles has been towards the acquisition of wheeled armoured personnel carriers (APCs) to supplement, or in some cases, replace, their more widely deployed tracked counterparts.

In some ways, wheeled APCs offer the user a number of significant advantages over their fully tracked and often heavier counterparts. One such is the lower overall life-cycle cost. This includes not only the initial procurement of the vehicle and its associated weapon system, but also its operation and maintenance over a typical life of 20 to 25 years. Associated costs are not limited to fuel, ammunition and training but also include spare parts and consumables, such as tyres and tracks.

An increasing number of armies around the world are becoming more involved in peacekeeping-type operations, such as those now being carried out in the Balkans as well as some parts of Africa and Asia. For these types of operations, tracked vehicles are often seen as an unnecessarily threatening influence. Not only are they normally larger and heavier but they are noisier and their tracks can damage the roads and tracks, which act as a lifeline for food and other essential supplies in many parts of the world.

In some cases, a number of tracked armoured vehicles are simply too heavy to be deployed, as the roads and bridges in-theatre have not been designed to accept vehicles weighing over 25 tonnes.

In addition, the size and weight of many tracked vehicles mean that they cannot be easily transported in the very widely deployed Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules transport aircraft, which is still the standard transport aircraft for many countries, even though its basic design is now 50 years old. Moreover, internally, tracked vehicles have a much higher noise level that can cause ear damage in sustained operations.

Peacekeeping operations often mean covering very large distances on a continuous basis and this is where the wheeled APC is seen as representing a more cost-effective solution.

On the other hand, most wheeled APCs do not have the same level of firepower and protection as more recently developed fully tracked infantry combat vehicles (ICVs), such as the Hägglunds Vehicle CV 9030/9040, Alvis Vehicles Warrior, United Defense Bradley and ASCOD.

These ICVs have a much higher level of ballistic protection than their wheeled counterparts. They are fitted with a two-person turret armed with a 25, 30 or 40 mm cannon which is often stabilised and coupled to an advanced fire-control system. These ICVs are designed to operate in conjunction with Main Battle Tanks (MBTs) and therefore have a very high level of cross-country mobility.

While some countries are moving to an all-wheeled solution, others are moving to a more balanced fleet of tracked and wheeled APCs. The Swiss Army, for example, has ordered 186 of the latest Hägglunds Vehicle CV9030CHs to replace older United Defense M113 series vehicles. These CV9030CH vehicles will operate alongside 515 MOWAG Piranha (8 × 8) vehicles ordered several years ago.

NO:740_23
helldog 　於　2002/09/23 09:38
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

請問一下,如果當制空權沒有拿到,對方擁有強大的防空能力,使UAV只有低的存活率.雙方還是會淪為傳統的運動戰.以中裝師的中度防護力,如何對抗對方高防護力的重裝甲師??
NO:740_24
SANJYSAN 　於　2002/09/23 16:36
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

如果制空權沒拿到，通常表示對方也有強大的空軍與對地攻擊能力。
這時對方的重裝師還沒衝上來，她的空軍和長程砲兵就過來轟炸好幾
輪了。IBCT/SBCT之類的是整體作戰系統的一環，其優勢是全面性的，
發展與運用這種單位的國家在兵力、技術、數量、空優這些都會有全面
性的優勢。如果自認沒這種優勢，要嘛不浪費錢發展，要嘛就不使用。

最明顯的例子就是美國陸軍的防空單位的數量與能力，與歐洲、俄國
等比起來爛的可憐。那麼如果一個美國裝甲師被敵方空襲怎麼辦？美
國為何不像俄國一樣要發展完整的屢帶防空系統？因為美國陸軍根本
不需考慮敵方的高強度、大規模的空襲，有美國空軍罩著。如果美國
沒有拿到空優，就不會派部隊去給對方打靶。

因此在沒有SA優勢的情況時，IBCT當然打不過重裝師，這時的方法就
是不要投入戰鬥。

NO:740_25
flak(東京報導) 　於　2002/09/23 19:39
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

最近看到一篇報導，原來前蘇聯履帶防空蟑螂可以到處亂跑也不是沒有原因的。
英國的假想敵部隊使用這些武器發現，前蘇聯的這些履帶小強就西方的工作安全要求是不合格的，在狹小的空間中，高伏特電線、高能磁波亂跑，缺乏良好的電磁阻隔。難怪這些小強可以生得又快又多。
NO:740_26
開學的邱 　於　2002/09/24 11:35
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

這個...蘇聯的武器是拿來給士兵用的
人多嘛...不管是履帶小強還是大型蟑螂(T-XX戰車系)
都是這種狀況 彈藥保護不周
室內配線亂來 沒有防爆系統
對了 Flak大大 您跑去東京嚕
要帶一點土產喔 就...Tokyo Marui吧
NO:740_27
SK2 Outside 　於　2002/09/26 13:41
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>許多人質疑中裝部隊的生存性都是著重在面對重裝部隊的脆弱性。但中裝部隊以致於往後的Objective Force是用另外一個眼光看待這件事：如果你能在50公里外就發現並監控敵重裝部隊，則敵我雙方的比較起碼是對等的。而等到我方擁有50公里以上射程的GMLRS、NetFires、CAS時，火力的優勢是在我們這邊，敵軍滿車的120砲於我何有哉？

But this doesnt happen when you are facing urban combat, which US and many other countries expect to be the major warzone in the 21st century. How to find those thousands of small squads of soldiers from the innocent civilians? GMLRS and other artillery will be useless unless you want to blow all things up like what Russians did in Gronzy...

>在狹小的空間中，高伏特電線、高能磁波亂跑，缺乏良好的電磁阻隔

you mean the recent version of Air Force Monthly? Yes thats correct, I think no men here would like to sit in the SA-8 driver(or operator?) seat which has a high voltage power line run between your legs......

NO:740_28
flak 　於　2002/09/26 13:54
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>But this doesnt happen when you are facing urban combat
沒錯，所以SBCT才會是一個機械化步兵旅，經費佔一小部分，但人力佔絕大部分的步兵就是要去打城鎮戰的。
絕大多數的火力：突擊砲、迫砲以及Land Warrior的目的也是支持高強度城鎮作戰。
>GMLRS and other artillery will be useless unless
砲兵在城鎮戰環境中，總比120滑膛砲要有用得多。

所以裝甲部隊輕量化並不是盲目追求長程間接火力，事實上還有另一個目標：支援步兵的城鎮作戰。像SBCT的Stryker就是明顯的例子，雖然沒有厚重的正面裝甲，但全車身都有抗機槍的防彈裝甲，同時車頂武器可以從車中遙控發射，在狹窄的街道中，這樣子的防護遠比M1幾乎暴露的車長機槍座好得多。

NO:740_29
SK2 Outside 　於　2002/09/26 14:05
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>砲兵在城鎮戰環境中，總比120滑膛砲要有用得多

I think half correct, the mortars will be more useful, said by the israelis

however, how will you get to the city? by the Stryker? Thats also hot debate from the US sites about the suitability of the Stryker in urban warfare, supporters said that it can rely on speed, while others said that it has too little armor, from the Israel and gronzy experience. The enemy will throw whatever they have to you, from AK-47 to RPG-7 to AT-4. They think that the Stryker armor will not be able to sustain multi hits of various direction from those weapons. Of course, its a good vehicle for UN peace keeping operations, but I think thats all.

NO:740_30
helldog 　於　2002/09/26 14:05
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

但美國不是要裁撤掉重裝師,將來全用SBCT代替??
NO:740_31
SK2 Outside 　於　2002/09/26 14:09
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

of coz not, heavy divisions will still exists
NO:740_32
flak 　於　2002/09/26 19:37
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>They think that the Stryker armor will not be able to sustain multi hits of
>various direction from those weapons.
這是一個很tricky的問題。Stryker的確不行，但又有什麼車可以呢？T-80？BMP-3？M-1?誰的頂部裝甲有興趣挨個RPG到AT-4看看？尤其是封閉空間發射的ATGM已經量產化的今天。

一個例子是蒙達得休市，巴基斯坦的M48帶著馬來西亞的AMX-10前去拯救遊騎兵，結果路上 遇到路障，M48駕駛的反應是叫AMX-10的步兵下來清除路障。M48怕被地雷炸，怕被火箭圍攻，難道步兵就不怕？

再講一個例子，有一名美國海陸LAV士官出了一本波灣回憶錄，其中有一段是進攻到某郊區時，排長發現一個建築物上有敵軍蹤跡，於是下令作者作出反應。作者的反應是什麼呢？答案是快速接近建築物，放下步兵從兩側進攻該棟建築，再後撤到有利地形提供火力支援。

這都說明在城鎮戰中，最好的武器永遠是步兵。裝甲再厚，幫不了步兵清除房間。既然如此，那裝甲還有什麼意義？SBCT雖輕，卻是第一支連級正規化機械部隊，所有的車輛幾乎都以支援步兵為目的。海陸的武裝是可笑的輕（別忘了一發RPG可以炸死20幾個人的LVT7，還是跟著M1與M60一路到科威特市）許多人認為美國海陸才是真正的運動戰部隊，顯然不在於裝甲的輕重，而是深得「運動」的精髓。

其次，城鎮戰的難度是隨著防守的準備而提高。而敵人準備的時間越久，防守的強度越高。因此SBCT是以Operation面的優點取代Tactical的缺點，當然SBCT也希望盡可能提高裝甲，但上限是不能影響到Operation級的機動性。

NO:740_33
flak 　於　2002/09/26 19:39
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>但美國不是要裁撤掉重裝師,將來全用SBCT代替??
目前是SBCT與重裝師並存，未來都被Objective Force，也就是FCS計畫取代
NO:740_35
helldog 　於　2002/09/27 11:15
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

在FCS計畫中是否已無重戰車了??
NO:740_36
SK2 Outside 　於　2002/09/27 15:25
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

amm...what about the Archzit APC that the Israeli use? Also the BMP-T by the Russians
NO:740_37
SK2 Outside 　於　2002/09/27 15:39
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>不在於裝甲的輕重，而是深得「運動」的精髓

We all know the marines did well, but will the SBCT from the Army did that brillant also? Thats a big question, and thats why I would prefer using the Marines instead of SBCT

NO:740_38
flak 　於　2002/09/27 17:33
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>在FCS計畫中是否已無重戰車了??
對，30噸重量上限
>what about the Archzit APC that the Israeli use? Also the BMP-T by the Russians
潮流中總是會有反潮流，這是個自由的世界
>Thats a big question, and thats why I would prefer using the Marines instead
>of SBCT
這就是信譽的問題了。
SBCT跟海陸的LAV部隊比起來，純就武裝科技上來看，還是有進步的。
NO:740_39
helldog 　於　2002/10/01 11:04
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

有一個疑問,歐美發展SBCT,他們能保證以後被海扁的國家一定比他們弱很多嗎??如果對付的是蘇聯或中國的那種大國,空權不一定保證拿到的前題下,SBCT跟本施展不開ㄚ.
NO:740_40
flak 　於　2002/10/01 13:15
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>歐美發展SBCT,他們能保證以後被海扁的國家一定比他們弱很多嗎??
他們當然不能保證，但是更不能保證在海扁前有足夠的腹地與時間去展開其重裝甲部隊
>空權不一定保證拿到的前題下
空權拿不到，陸軍也是可以阻止對方拿到空權。美國陸軍的MEADS計畫一樣是以C130空運
NO:740_41
SK2 　於　2002/10/05 14:24
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

食人魚四

General description
As a further evolution of the highly successful PIRANHA Family of armoured wheeled vehicle, as adopted by various NATO ( including the U.S. Army) and Non-NATO countries, MOWAG developed as a private venture the PIRANHA IV 8x8 vehicle to complement any applications over and above the PIRANHA III capabilities.
The heavier PIRANHA IV 8x8 vehicle, using the well proven technology of the PIRANHA III, offers higher levels of armour as well as mine protection and meets the future EURO 3 traffic emission regulations.
Typical new features are the digitized vehicle information system (VETRONICS) with built-in test (BIT) capabilities, the reduced radar and thermal signatures, as well as the latest anti-tank mine protection concept.
With its Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of approx. 25 tons, the PIRANHA IV provides a payload carrying capacity of approx. 10 tons, and despite its low vehicle silhouette, has a spacious internal useable volume of approx. 12.5 m³.
The proven sub-systems contribute to a very high reliability - a traditionally outstanding feature of all PIRANHAs - which again results in low operational and maintenance cost.
The affordable solution of a modern multi-role armoured vehicle with enhanced mobility, survivability and capacity.

Mission roles
Wide range of applications; from a well protected APC, or as an ideal weapons platform for fighting vehicles to various command support variants or peace enforcement operations.


Mobility
The semi-active hydro-pneumatic suspension system at all wheel stations improves cross-country mobility, maximises crew comfort and its height adjustment system enables an increase or lowering of the ground clearance according to the type of terrain and depending on the mine threat. Powered by a state-of-the-art diesel engine and coupled to a fully 7 speed automatic transmission, a high power-to-weight ratio provides excellent driving performance.

Mine protection
A unique and inherent mine protection concept (Patent pending) has been realized. By means of the stiffer hull structure, the arrangement of the suspension system, under floor special armour and the specially designed crew seats, an optimum level of protection is offered against various anti-tank mines.

Internal utilisable volume
Ergonomically designed crew stations with a new man-machine interface and plenty of stowage space for the crews personal equipment are provided within the vehicle. The total available internal volume is 12,5 m³ which can be used for turrets, ammunition, personnel or material.
Standard equipment includes:
- central tyre pressure regulation system (CTIS)
- vehicle height management system
- anti-locking brake system (ABS)
- anti-tank mine protection
- digitized vehicle information system (VETRONICS)

Options:
- add-on armour kits for different protection levels
- self-recovery winch with 8 ton pulling capacity
- life support system (combined NBC, airconditioning and heating system)
- fire and explosion suppression system
- turning circle control (TCC)
- traction control system (TCS)
- various weapon and communication systems

http://www.mowag.ch/En/02_ProdukteEn/PIRANHAEn/PIRANHA4En/PIRANHA4En.htm

NO:740_42
SK2 　於　2002/10/05 14:50
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

後置引擎版本食人魚: 鯊魚

http://www.mowag.ch/Images/Bildergalerie/Archiv/page_06.htm

NO:740_43
Kim 　於　2002/10/05 21:10
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

http://enews.seed.net.tw/PUBLISH/CLASS005/NP009/epaper.shtml?enews20021004.htm

把貨機改大或許是老美的另一個選擇

NO:740_44
SK2 　於　2002/10/05 21:56
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

看JDW時竟完全沒留意...
NO:740_45
小毛 　於　2002/10/06 03:01
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

波音的超大型運輸機:
http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/i_pw.html
看來鋼彈裏面的卡烏等級的重型越洋運輸/爆擊機也快要量產了,一次丟下十幾台M1A1??

食人魚後置引擎,那運兵能力不就等於零,不過拿來當多用途載台倒是不錯.可惜照片上的食人魚都像是早期版本的

台灣本身使用CH-130載運裝甲部隊的需求不高,所以就算是十輪型的食人魚甲車也不會造成太多困擾,於是樣加強裝甲的可以加強裝甲,要裝大砲的可以加裝大砲,不過,先建案訂定採購時程再說.

至於歐美常常要在全世界開打,不從裝甲材料方面突破的話,重量還是會一直造成困擾的.鋁質車身加塑膠+陶瓷或是強化纖維+陶瓷裝甲怎樣?內再加可更換的凱夫勒裝甲襯墊(定期更換),外面加掛模組化的反應裝甲應該也夠了吧!只要能防40mm以下彈藥就可以保用廿年了!

NO:740_46
SK2 　於　2002/10/06 14:17
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>食人魚後置引擎,那運兵能力不就等於零,不過拿來當多用途載台倒是不錯.可惜照片上的食人魚都像是早期版本的

那其實就是食人魚的祖先, 主要當武器載台

>台灣本身使用CH-130載運裝甲部隊的需求不高,所以就算是十輪型的食人魚甲車也不會造成太多困擾

基本上應沒有運載裝甲部隊的需求吧

>鋁質車身加塑膠+陶瓷或是強化纖維+陶瓷裝甲怎樣?內再加可更換的凱夫勒裝甲襯墊(定期更換)

應至少有點鋼防KE彈

NO:740_47
黃金左腳 　於　2002/10/10 18:40
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

2002.10.08　 中國時報
波音將建造超大塘鵝機
劉鐵虎╱綜合報導

波音公司計畫建造世界最大的飛機，足可將坦克部隊直接運載到戰區。

這型飛機叫做「塘鵝」，翼展超過五百英尺，機翼面積達一英畝。波音七四七翼展為一百九十五英尺。航空工程師說，這型飛機將可運載一萬四千噸貨物飛行一萬英里以上。

【塘鵝難道是波音集團的幸運吉祥物不成？？先前競標失敗的X-32長得像塘鵝，這個新方案的代號也是塘鵝......】

塘鵝機將設計成可在海洋上方五十英尺飛行，運用飛近水面獲取最大燃料經濟效益的飛航浮力前進。美國國防首長相信，一支塘鵝機隊可讓他們以遠少於貨船運載的時間運送數千名部隊、坦克和援助到世界任何地方。

塘鵝機將有能力運載達十七輛大型戰鬥坦克，每輛均重逾五十噸。現在服勤的最大軍事貨機是俄羅斯安托諾夫二二五型機，其最大航程為二千八百英里。

塘鵝機將如傳統飛機一般在軍機場或民間機場起降，但它得有達卅八組起落架和七十六個輪胎方可平均承載重量。此機動力取自四具先進渦輪引擎，可在二萬英尺高空巡行，不過其最大效力在水面上得以發揮。塘鵝計畫總幹事羅登說：「它將比船隻快得多，營運成本還比商業客機低許多。這種超大運輸機將吸引需要速度的軍民業主，可與貨櫃船競爭。

【用單兵防空飛彈甚至一支重機槍便有機會一口氣毀掉一整個M-1A2重裝甲連......這個方案對恐怖份子而言恐怕更具吸引力......】

NO:740_48
SK2 　於　2002/10/10 20:32
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

若果以50噸X17換算, 塘鵝可運850噸貨物, 那等於可載2個SBCT的連!

>航空工程師說，這型飛機將可運載一萬四千噸貨物飛行一萬英里以上。
創舉! 竟可可運載一萬四千噸貨物!

NO:740_49
TTSO 　於　2002/10/10 20:50
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

若果以50噸X17換算, 塘鵝可運850噸貨物, 那等於可載2個SBCT的連!
>航空工程師說，這型飛機將可運載一萬四千噸貨物飛行一萬英里以上。
創舉! 竟可可運載一萬四千噸貨物!
---
笨蛋記者多畫了一個零...

這就跟Billion每次都被翻成億一樣..

NO:740_50
SK2 　於　2002/10/10 21:17
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>這就跟Billion每次都被翻成億一樣

是乎你用英制還是美制

NO:740_51
TTSO 　於　2002/10/11 01:10
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>>這就跟Billion每次都被翻成億一樣
>是乎你用英制還是美制
即使是英翻法，也不是億... 是萬億

而且現在英國人用的Billion也都是10^9，而不是10^12
更不是10^8...

NO:740_52
SK2 　於　2002/10/11 19:56
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

萬億是 Trillion, 億是Billion(英制)
NO:740_53
Jamexz 　於　2002/10/14 00:14
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

剛去了波音的新聞網址看了一下，Pelican這東西的目的並不是要像C-130和C-17一樣衝進戰區。相反的，Pelican是用於取代以往的貨櫃船（Cargoship），藉者Pelican的快速（比船快）以及它的高貨載量（比飛機多）以提昇美軍的全球部署能力。


John Skorupa, senior manager of strategic development for Boeing Advanced Airlift and Tankers, said, The Pelican currently stands as the only identified means by which the U.S. Army can achieve its deployment transformation goals of deploying one division in five days, or five divisions in 30 days, anywhere in the world. If necessary, he said, the Pelican could carry 17 M-1 main battle tanks on a single sortie. Commercially, the aircrafts size and efficiency would allow it to carry types of cargo equivalent to those carried by container ships, at more than 10 times the speed.注意這邊，這個東西是為”陸軍”而生的。


Its an effect that provides extraordinary range and efficiency, Skorupa said. With a payload of 1.5 million pounds, the Pelican could fly 10,000 nautical miles over water and 6,500 nautical miles over land.不太清楚英制和公制的換算，１５００萬磅是１４００噸嗎？

NO:740_54
黃金左腳 　於　2002/10/14 00:55
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

一百五十萬磅重，約700公噸，換言之塘鵝可以扛著10~11輛M-1A2 MBT飛行12000公里（陸上飛行）至18500公里（水上飛行）之遠，幾乎可說是從美國本土出發便能直達世界任何角落（地球赤道週長也不過40000公里左右）.
NO:740_55
flak 　於　2002/10/14 10:14
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>直達世界任何角落
不是「任何」角落，而是任何這個兩百萬磅的傢伙可以降落的地方。
（在「壯志凌雲」書中，機長駕著一架機體重創，一具引擎失效的飛機要降落在機場上，這時他的問題是他必須保持170節以上的速度才能控制飛機，而且他沒有足夠的動力重新起飛，所以他有一句名言：「既然這是殲八的機場，那這條跑道一定夠長」）
（不過如果中國要作CF-105中國版的話，那中國境內會有很多「一定夠長」的跑道）
NO:740_56
flak 　於　2002/10/14 10:33
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

一些其它國家的報導：

英國的陸軍一直只有兩個師（沒錯吧？還是有一個後備師？），其一是駐在德國的第七師，其一是本土的第三師。現在英國打算將本土的第三師改成快速反應部隊，重點自然是將第三師的載具中裝化。這項計畫稱為FRES（Future Rapid Effect System），自然是一輛可以C-130或A-400空運的模組化構形裝甲車。目前這計畫已有歐美多家廠商的競標，預計要採購700輛左右。不過英國的作法可能令一些裝甲愛好者比較釋懷的是，目前的競爭者看來是以履帶推進為主。

法國原本就有AMX-10RC的中裝部隊，目前則以VBCI計畫，預計以8*8的輪型裝甲車來取代。另外，法國下一代裝甲車計畫類似FCS，將一舉取代雷克勒與VBCI，但不像美國的FCS是玄之又玄的System of Systems，法國的結構比較簡單，骨幹就是一種可以攜帶攻陸/防空飛彈與40公釐砲塔的輪型裝甲車：Boa。

德國的計畫有兩個，一個是輪型裝甲車計畫，一個是貂鼠的下一代，都可以A-400空運。下一代的IFV原本已經接近定型，但德國以「不夠國際化」為由退回。所以德國應該要與英國的計畫掛勾。（相對於豹二，貂鼠似乎是沒有外銷經驗？！）

NO:740_57
邱 　於　2002/10/14 12:38
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

?那英國名聞遐邇的第一裝甲師去哪邊了?
嗯~~~想不到英國還是偏好採用履帶機制啊 真不愧是保守的英國佬
之前還以為輕戰車會這樣凋零下去說
但是 市面上的中裝部隊普遍以輪車為大宗 英國可以選擇的履帶款式並不多ㄟ......
NO:740_58
黃金左腳 　於　2002/10/14 13:33
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

嗯~~~想不到英國還是偏好採用履帶機制啊 真不愧是保守的英國佬

再加上個德意志男...........

NO:740_59
flak 　於　2002/10/14 13:48
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>那英國名聞遐邇的第一裝甲師去哪邊了?
我打錯了，駐在德國的應該是第一師，本土的是第三師，這兩個稱為戰鬥師（Fighting Division)。第2、4、5師則應該算是後備師的樣子。
NO:740_60
SK2 　於　2002/10/14 15:34
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>英國可以選擇的履帶款式並不多ㄟ

所以他們才會要新設計的車輛, 試想想, 有多少新履帶車輛可用C-130空運
VICKERS已初步推出了設計, 由兩種底盤組成, 一個是前置引擎, 一個是後置引擎
傳動初步用機械傳動, 但將來可改作電傳

NO:740_61
SK2 　於　2002/10/15 23:03
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

September 24, 2002; The U.S. Armys new Stryker LAV got a workout during the Millennium Challenge exercise last month. As with most new systems, there were a lot of problems. As had been discovered earlier, the Stryker is a tight fit when loading it into a C-130 for transport to the battle zone. The onboard .40 caliber machine-gun and automatic 40mm grenade launcher could not be fired while the vehicle was moving, contributing to 13 of 14 Strykers to be destroyed in several simulated battles. While the wheeled Stryker was somewhat faster than tracked vehicles, sixteen Strykers had to replace ten percent of their tires for various reasons during the four day exercise. The troops inside the Stryker found themselves very cramped, with some reporting that there wasnt even enough room to take a drink from a canteen. But when the Stryker went (their up time was 98 percent), they were fast and the troops appreciated that. But the troops also noted that the Stryker was also basically a thinly armored truck, not a wonder weapon.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htarm

NO:740_62
flak 　於　2002/10/16 09:27
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

這篇報導介紹美國中裝部隊的緣起
http://www.fenrir.com/free_stuff/columns/dunnigan/dun-019.htm
Warfare Lite


The U.S. Army has been looking at the U.S. Marine Corps experience with armored cars to provide some guidance about where, and how, the Army should proceed in this area.

Times have changed. Armored cars now are called light armored vehicles or LAVs for short.

The Army is in the midst of an ambitious series of reforms, the main ones having to do with getting rid of many of its heavy armored vehicles and replacing them with lighter, wheeled ones. - LAVs. Although the Army used armored cars in World War II for scouting units, they found that the troops preferred the faster and more agile jeep. Other nations had the same experience, and wheeled armored vehicles were much less common after the 1940s.

Where LAVs did remain popular was in police type operations, and more agile LAVs were developed for scouting as well. In fact, todays LAV is a lot more able than its World War II ancestors. Few generals really noticed this increased ability in LAVs. Among those who did were the U.S. Marine Corps. Unlike the Army and all their tanks, the Marines were more of an infantry force. The Marines had less money to play with and a wider array of potential missions.

The Marines have several decades of experience with LAVs. They have, as is their custom, always been imaginative in coming up with new ways to use their LAV forces. The increased demand for peacekeeping forces led the Marines to run an exercise in 1997 that took advantage of the LAVs strategic mobility (fast movement on roads - 50 percent faster than tanks), longer tactical range (burns less fuel than tanks) and smaller resupply demands (needs less fuel and fewer spare parts) to show how much more flexible an LAV force can be compared to a conventional armored force of tanks and APCs.

In 1997 the Marines ran an exercise they described as; The Scenario called for TF (Task Force) Lima, a regimental-sized LAR (light armor) force, to be introduced into the poor sub-Saharan African nation of Kusmahdi (represented by southern California). International relief centers in this country were being threatened by forces from a neighboring country (Tsanu). TF Lima would secure those relief centers, drive the aggressors from the country, and then establish an Exclusion Zone at the border (the Colorado River) until being withdrawn by higher authority.

TF Lima was introduced into the theater independently by several means: 4th Battalion and the TF Headquarters by amphibious landing at Camp Pendleton; 1st Battalion - (i.e., D Company) by strategic airlift (simulated) into El Centro, CA; and 3rd Battalion overland from a neighboring friendly country. (In reality, one company from 4th LAR road-marched from its home base in Utah to Barstow, CA, where it linked up with the 3rd LAR, to which it was attached.) Once in-theater, the battalions moved to safe havens prior to launching asynchronous attacks to secure [the] relief centers at China Lake, Twenty-one Palms, and Yuma.

This was the sort of thing you could not do with Army tanks (weighing nearly 60 tons each) and infantry vehicles (over 20 tons each). The Air Force doesnt have enough transports to move that many vehicles all at once, and it takes a lot more trucks to carry fuel compared to what the LAV battalions need. In fact, the Marines were able to resupply and refuel the LAV units using aircraft and helicopters, as well as taking out wounded troops.

The Marine exercise had the various LAV columns moving from 70 to 170 miles, and doing it across a frontage of 250 miles. Fighters and bombers delivered additional firepower. This was needed when an enemy mechanized column (with some tanks) was introduced into the exercise. Two of the LAV battalions combined to defeat this threat with mortars and anti-tank missiles.

It was exercises like this that persuaded the Army to get into the LAV business. All the wars since 1991 have been LAV Wars and despite large tank forces in North Korea, Iraq, Iran and China, the Army was more afraid of being caught short by the Marines than by hostile tank battalions.

And they have reason to be. Public opinion is more likely to allow more peacekeeping than getting involved in wars requiring lots of tanks. Of course, a tank war can be forced on America, but the generals see it more likely that we will be involved in warfare lite. So warfare lite it is. Whatever the consequences.

NO:740_63
flak 　於　2002/10/16 12:57
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>再加上個德意志男...........
其實德國不但有輪型裝甲車的計畫，其超輕型裝甲車更是功能多變：防空、打人、反戰車。其空運能力更是LAV望塵莫及的：可以CH-53空運。
NO:740_64
SANJYSAN 　於　2002/10/16 13:57
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

如果說美國玩的是中裝旅，德國玩得就是輕裝旅了。
不過我覺得很奇怪的就是，weasel等級的超輕裝甲車衍生型組成的
完整作戰序列為何就只德國一家，別無其他分號？
法國不是也玩旋翼旅大行軍嗎？他沒怎麼沒有想到用像是德國一樣的超輕裝甲單位？
NO:740_65
邱 　於　2002/10/17 09:28
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

因為老德在世界陸軍上 算是科技最進步的國家
加上傳統普魯士思想 永遠的機動戰(機動進攻 機動防禦 機動撤退....)
機動力勝過一切的狀況下...超輕型甲車出現(小邱:Shit..豹二A6萬歲)
老法在冷戰的思想 是利用直昇機隊迅速前進來支援北約最前線(要不等裝甲到 老德也掛了)
所以直昇機作戰觀念發展很早(打廣告...詳情請見Flak大大的樹梢上的空優)
也由於多年來使用直昇機心得有成 機動部隊於是以旋翼為主
NO:740_66
flak 　於　2002/10/20 12:03
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

這算是美國陸軍最新的官方說詞
Narrative of Stryker Air Deployability Demonstration

(Source: US Army; issued Oct. 17, 2002)

In October 1999, in anticipation of future requirements and in response to the changing global situation over the previous decade, the Army announced a Vision to transform itself into an Objective Force that is strategically responsive and dominant at every point on the spectrum of military operations.

Military deployments have increased dramatically in number and variety since the end of the Cold War. Operations in places such as Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Afghanistan have reflected mission requirements that span the full spectrum of military conflict.

These deployments highlight a critical shortfall in the Armys operational capability: the Armys heavy combat forces, though lethal and survivable, are not rapidly deployable, and its light infantry forces can strike fast but lack survivability, lethality, and tactical mobility. The Stryker Brigade Combat Team, or S-B-C-T, is designed to fill this gap in the Nations military capability while leveraging todays state of the art technologies.

The Army Transformation Campaign Plan synchronizes the Armys Transformation process. It represents the Armys blueprint to achieve its Objective Force goal of providing Combatant Commanders with the ability to deploy a combat brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a division in 120 hours, and five divisions within 30 days.

The first step in the Transformation process is to fill the existing operational capabilities gap between our current heavy and light forces by forming and equipping six Stryker Brigade Combat Teams by 2008, with the goal of organizing, equipping, training, and certifying the first Brigade for overseas deployment by May 2003.

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team is designed to conduct operations across the depth and breadth of the area of operations, against both traditional and asymmetric adversaries. It operates within an Area of Operation of approximately 50 x 50 kilometers.

Though optimized for Small Scale Contingencies, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team is designed to engage in all types of military conflicts, including designated contingency operations when augmented or when operating as part of a larger force.

The Stryker Brigade Combat Teams are operational forces that fill a critical gap in our capabilities, but these units also provide valuable insights for the Objective Force. The Stryker Brigade Combat Teams serve as an indispensable vanguard for Transformation, validating operational concepts, organizational models, and deployment scenarios as well as implementing training and leader development initiatives.

The Stryker is the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams primary combat and combat support platform and the centerpiece of this ongoing phase of Army Transformation. Significantly lighter and more transportable than existing tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the Stryker fulfills an immediate requirement to provide Combatant Commanders with a strategically and tactically deployable Brigade capable of rapid movement anywhere on the globe in an operationally ready configuration.

The Stryker is designed to enable the S-B-C-T to first maneuver more easily in close and urban terrain; second, provides protection in open terrain; and third, transports infantry to the decisive point on the battlefield. Performance highlights include -- C-130 transportability; internetted C-4-I-S-R capability; integral all around 14. 5mm armor protection; 152mm artillery airburst protection; self-deployment and self-recovery capability; reduced vehicle acoustic signature; the ability to carry a nine-man infantry or engineer squad; and bunker and wall breaching capability.

These performance characteristics provide a force that will move rapidly as a cohesive combined arms combat team, a capability not currently in the Army force structure. These attributes make the Stryker the Armys first true system-of-systems.

Additionally, and equally important, the Stryker family of vehicles stresses performance and commonality that reduces the logistics footprint and minimizes sustainment costs. The ten configurations of the 19-ton Stryker are powered by the same engine used in the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles. The Stryker can reach speeds in excess of 60 mph and has a cruising range exceeding 300 miles on 53 gallons of fuel.

The Army is currently fielding Strykers to two Brigades at Ft. Lewis, Washington; the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (1st S-B-C-T) and 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (2nd S-B-C-T). The first S-B-C-T will achieve Initial Operational Capability in May 2003. Ultimately, the Army will field the two S-B-C-Ts at Fort Lewis, Washington; one each at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and Fort Polk, Louisiana; as well as a National Guard brigade in Pennsylvania, at the rate of one per year.

A total of 2,112 Strykers will be fielded to the six S-B-C-Ts and to the Armys training base. Eight configurations are in production now. Deliveries began in February 2002 and over 200 Strykers have been delivered to the Army. The final two configurations, the Mobile Gun System and Nuclear Biological Chemical Reconnaissance Vehicle, are in development and will be delivered beginning in 2004.

The Global War on Terrorism and subsequent military deployments further amplify the urgent national defense requirement for Stryker-equipped Brigades. To meet this urgent need, the Army has accelerated Stryker fielding to provide the Combatant Commanders with a Contingency Force prepared for immediate deployment in support of joint and coalition operations. Additionally, the Army has reprioritized its modernization program to fully support Stryker and the fielding of the S-B-C-Ts. Development, testing, and fielding are proceeding concurrently in order to minimize fielding timelines. This is a remarkable achievement - from design to delivery in two years. The fielding of Stryker has definitely not been business as usual.

Potential adversaries will use any available means to thwart conventional deployments. They will try to deny our entry into theater and conduct attacks against arriving forces with special operations forces, paramilitary elements, long-range strikes, terrorists, and weapons of mass effects - chemical, biological, or nuclear. Once U-S forces arrive, our adversaries will attempt to prolong operations to wear down U-S and coalition commitment. For these reasons, it is essential that U-S forces arrive rapidly, prepared for immediate tactical employment to defeat attempts to affect our operations. Forces must arrive with a combined arms capability, with all required equipment, capable of self-sustainment, prepared to fight from day one.

S-B-C-Ts strategically deploy from home station into a theater of operations by air and sea. In theater, the Strykers size, weight, speed, and range enable the S-B-C-T to move rapidly by ground, tactical airlift, or sealift, such as the High Speed Vessel, into and between Areas of Operations, providing the ground commander with additional tactical flexibility.

C-130 transportability disciplined the Army in its source selection process to balance size and weight with other requirements. The size and weight limits imposed by C-130 transportability enable more Strykers to be deployed by other means - C-17 and High Speed Vessel, for example. C-130 aircraft provide greater access to airstrips than would be possible with larger aircraft. Additionally, because the C-130 is the most common tactical lift aircraft in the world, the Strykers transportability enables even greater tactical flexibility during coalition operations.

Let me set the stage for this demonstration. The United States is engaged in an operation against a mobile, elusive, and innovative enemy in an escalating Small Scale Contingency.

Assume for a moment that you are at a C-130 capable landing strip that has been chosen to allow rapid insertion of a combined arms team into a portion of the area of operations. Several hours ago, U-S Army Rangers conducted a forced entry into this airfield to secure it for follow-on operations. They are presently providing security on the perimeter waiting for the arrival of the elements of the S-B-C-T.

U-S Air Force and U-S Navy aircraft are providing escort and cover as the Air Force aircraft approach with the Army Soldiers and their Stryker vehicles. Other Special Operations forces are in the surrounding Area of Operations coordinating with coalition forces to provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information to the Joint Force Commander. U-S Navy ships are interdicting potential adversaries at sea and providing support to the on-going air campaign.

Now, a C-130 carrying a Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle, two-man crew, and nine-man squad has landed, the first of a company combined arms team, to help expand the airhead and prepare to conduct follow-on operations.

The vehicle will exit the aircraft and the crew quickly reconfigures the vehicle for operation. The Remote Weapon Station is erected from the stowed position (as designed), and smoke grenade launchers, antennas, and third road wheel bump stops are reattached. Soldiers hang their rucksacks on the outside of the vehicle and configure the ammunition, food, and water required to self-sustain for up to 72 hours of continuous operations. The vehicle weight for airlift is approximately 37,500 pounds, including its high-density ceramic 14.5mm armor.

Once the vehicle is configured, the squad moves to a secure unit assembly area to await the arrival of the remainder of the team. Several more C-130s are due in closely behind this one, and once the unit builds sufficient combat power, it will move out further into the area of operations to conduct its mission. The Rangers and Special Operations forces will continue their missions and also prepare for follow-on operations.

Just a few hours ago, the Strykers that landed in C-130s were actually cross-loaded from C-17 aircraft at an intermediate staging base, or I-S-B. At the I-S-B, units arriving by strategic lift are deployed by tactical means into their areas of operation. In this case, a C-17 aircraft having just arrived from the United States, has landed carrying three Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicles.

Two of those vehicles are already configured for combat and will self deploy by road to their area of operations. The wheeled Strykers high speed and low fuel consumption allow them to move quickly and efficiently within theatre, without tank transporters, over secondary roads and bridges.

The third Stryker transloads to a C-130 aircraft for insertion into the airhead we described a moment ago. Because it was known that the vehicle would be transloaded at the ISB, the Stryker was prepared for C-130 transport before it left the United States. All the equipment, ammunition, food, and water required for an extended period are already stowed on the vehicle.

The C-17 Globemaster III is the newest, most flexible cargo aircraft cargo aircraft to enter the United States Air Force. The C-17 can rapidly deliver troops and all types of cargo to main operating bases or directly to forward bases in the deployment area. It can also perform tactical airlift and airdrop missions when required.

Most of you are familiar with the C-130 Hercules aircraft. The Army has used the C-130 to carry troops and equipment for 40 years. The C-130 can rapidly deliver troops and all types of cargo directly to forward bases in the deployment area and transport equipment into and around areas of operations. It can also perform tactical airlift and airdrop missions when required.

NO:740_67
flak 　於　2002/10/23 12:23
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

UD公開其FCS設計，可愛小車車.....
http://www.uniteddefense.com/pr/pr_20021021.htm
NO:740_68
邱 　於　2002/10/23 12:33
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

好......塑膠感喔>.< 一點都沒有真實的感覺
而且可怕的是 履帶跟輪車的越野速度竟然一樣ㄟ
從0-30mph只要7秒....
履帶車可以使用C-130空運
而這個全新概念車種預計要在2008年服役
真不愧是死老美...................................................
吼吼~~~~~~~
NO:740_69
SK2 　於　2002/10/23 19:28
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

以上的研究最早的不是美國, 而是瑞典的SEP

瑞典的SEP可把左右的行動模組隨意換作輪型/履帶型, 速度差不多一樣

空重13.5T, 比UD的輕

NO:740_70
Darth Panda 　於　2002/10/23 23:13
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

for SK2
you meant: http://www.haggve.se/stdpage.asp?Pid=12
NO:740_71
SK2 　於　2002/10/23 23:32
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

bingo
NO:740_72
flak 　於　2002/10/24 17:43
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>以上的研究最早的不是美國, 而是瑞典的SEP
這個有競標英國的FRES。
NO:740_73
flak 　於　2002/10/30 10:19
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Oct2002/r20021021transcrip101502.html
美國陸軍的SBCT最近遭受不少質疑，舉辦了一場記者會說明，還特地安排了Stryker從C-130開出來恢復戰備狀況的實際操演，證明空運時雖然需要拆除一些部件，但可以很快回復。

不過美國陸軍仍然承認，Stryker上C-130，由於高度逼近貨艙頂，所以需要waiver，我不知道這是啥東西。有一些之前的文章倒是說，空軍抱怨載一輛Stryker實際需要兩架C-130， 架載車， 一架載人與油彈。以後還有105砲的突擊砲，不知道要怎麼塞？！

NO:740_74
Zenobia 　於　2002/10/30 10:51
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

Waiver 就是免死金牌，也就是說這麼逼近貨艙頂應該是不能放飛的，要
請空軍還是 FAA 睜一隻眼閉一隻眼，祈禱飛行中不會遇到太大的亂流。
NO:740_75
flak 　於　2002/11/11 12:23
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>Darth Panda 　於　2002/11/10 22:54
>Re:網友留言欄Part77

>For LAV fans
>http://www.geocities.com/lavdanger
不錯的網頁，收集了各種對SBCT的攻擊。美國蠻多這種履帶輕裝派的

NO:740_76
flak 　於　2002/11/11 13:54
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Nov2002/r20021107transcript7nov2002.html
美國陸軍說明未來發展的記者會，基本上SBCT→OF仍然是他們的王道。
有一點有趣的是美國的國家訓練中心，以前的標準紅軍是一支蘇聯摩托化步兵團，現在則充斥著這種城鎮作戰的設施

其中記者問到，為什麼大家都討厭SBCT，他的回答是：
Secretary White: On the first point, when the Chief of Staff set the direction on where the Army was headed in transformation of which Stryker is an integral part three years ago, not everybody liked that decision. Weve never fielded a wheeled combat vehicle other than an MP vehicle I think, but for a line unit as long as Ive been around. So theres this culture of track vehicles and heavier stuff versus this new culture that we are bringing on of the wheels of Stryker and so forth that keep colliding and grinding away. So theres this background music from that community of people that never liked the decision on Stryker in the first place, and tries to take every opportunity to challenge that.

NO:740_77
flak 　於　2002/12/16 15:17
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

德國8*8輪型裝甲車計畫的原型車
http://www.kmweg.de/english/news/news46.html
照片在這裡
http://www.kmweg.de/english/rad/radgtk_body_fs.html
NO:740_78
BWS 　於　2002/12/16 18:58
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

>>德國8*8輪型裝甲車計畫的原型車
車身好高好高的車..
NO:740_79
UFO 　於　2002/12/16 20:04
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

冷戰結束以後,西方各國都在裁軍,國防經費相當有限,裝甲車的發展研發很緩慢....
像美國的M1從80年代服役至今,都是在以升級的方式來充實戰力提高戰車在戰場的存活性。
而且攻擊直升機和反裝甲飛彈研發迅速,應該也是主力戰車發展緩慢的原因吧!?
NO:740_80
mike 　於　2002/12/26 21:56
Re:裝甲部隊輕量化

Singapore BIONEX was the only foreign vehicle in the last 4
listed for MEDIUM ARMOURED VEHICLE OF US in 2001.The over all performace
is very good.See www.stengg.coM SINGAPORE ENGINEERING.

Their SAR 21,the only assualt refile come with built in laser
and 1.5 time telescope is well received in US retail market.

ULTIMAX 100 section machine is also popular in US.

There are many good products in Asia,too.

回論壇 以下表格僅供管理人員整理資料輸入之用

資料輸入ID
資料輸入密碼
請依文章內容欄寬度斷行(按Enter鍵)以免破行.THANKS~~
署名： [♂♀]：男女 HTML語法只提供字體變化與URL連結
回應主旨：
回應內容：
『 』 【 】 《 》 「 」 ， 。 （ ） ☆ ★ ○ ● ◇ ◆ □ ■ ◎ ☉ ↗ ↙ ↖ ↘ → ← ↑ ↓ ≠ ∞ × ÷ ＜ ＞ ∵ ∴ ㊣ ℃ ℉ ＄ ¥ £ ※ ♁
引述舉例:欲連結本版第123題編號123_5的發言
<a; href=http://taiwantp.net/cgi/roadbbs.pl?board_id=1&type;=show_post&post;=123_5>123;_5</a>

語法按鈕使用後請收尾→→→
使用IE，文章不慎消失時，請立即在打字區內按滑鼠右鍵選[復原]。