Originally posted by Joe Black:
I don't know how many times we have discussed this suggestion about
simply replacing SM1 or a tank with a missile based armoured fight
vehicle in the forum, it is simply NOT practical both in war and
during peace time. How many times do we have to re-iterate the
arguments before before can be convinced that doing away direct
fire platform with Spike firing platform is impractical.
1. Each spike missile cost a lot more than a tank shell. I can't
see the justification to use a spike missile to destroy a bunker or
an APC.
oh so true
2. How many spike can 1 AFV carry compared to the number of tank
shells? The logistic support for the spike launcher, storage tubes,
place and the missiles are far greater than the tank shells. Thus,
once again, less "rounds" per vehicle.
very true however the tank could have other things like rockets
or RPG's
3. Rate of fire... A 120mm gun can fire much faster rate than the
number of spikes that can be launched. Don't have the exact fire,
but I suspect, one can't fire more than 2 Spike per minute,
whereas, the 120mm gun has a norm of 6 rounds per minute.
Well the new spike it meant to replace the hellfire for the
Israel army i think....so it shld work like the hellfire where u
can fire of 1 missile every 4 seconds or so.....meaning a much
higher rate of fire
4. Fire on the move for 120mm gun that is stabalised can be as high
as 80-90% accurate. Try firing a spike on the move - impractical or
even impossible.
once again taking it to be like the hell fire if it can be fired
from a AH-64 and from bronco's then i doubt it'd be a
problem.
5. Doctrine has to change. Even the most advanced armies in the
world, namely the US Army, IDF, British Army or even the German
Army do not have such radical ideas. Look at US Army next
generation armoured vehicle, still gun based. Same goes with the
rest of the armies in the world. In fact the Germans were toying
with 140mm gun. I wonder whose "bright" idea within the armour
units came up with the "brilliant" missiles firing AFV to replace
gun-based and that the BG Tan could buy into such ideas.
The US army , British army and German army once toyed around
with that idea but found out that it was not practical as it would
be too expensive and not as good so they scrapped it and decided to
upgrade their tanks.
It was to be something like the Bradleybut with a 30-75mm gun and
carried some 16 missiles?read about it long ago lah but yea even
those guys found it useless how can the SAF consider it?!dunno wad
they thinking also....but then that was 10-20 years ago maybe times
have changed but i doubt it
