Sunday, August 30, 2015
How do you define armored fighting vehicle mobility?
How do you define armored vehicle mobility?
The question comes from the post yesterday concerning the Leclerc MBT. One of its main attributes put forward by its supporters is that its more mobile than any other tank in the West.
But how do you arrive at that?
Consider the assault on Baghdad. Traveling at 30mph over broken ground is a jarring experience. It not only breaks trucks but it gives tanks a good work out. Quite honestly moving faster than that is not only not necessary but downright hazardous to the crew.
What about obstacles? If your assault is stalled because you have bring forward bridging equipment for your MBTs but your AAVs or other amphibious vehicles can continue does that mean that they're somehow more mobile than your tanks...even if they're slower cross country?
What about travel on hard packed soil or roads? Wheeled IFVs can approach (some of them) almost 70-80mph. Yet those same vehicles struggle in mud, whereas the MBTs (if driven correctly) can make it thru. What about vehicles that lack the mobility of tanks over broken ground like the LAV-25, yet have the ability to lifted (a short distance) by CH-53E. Suddenly that dense forest is bypassed by air and your heavy armor has to make a detour. Does that make the LAV-25 and other readily heli-lifted vehicles the ultimate in being mobile?
So exactly how do you define armored fighting vehicle mobility?