Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The U.S. Army Will Pit Two Light Tank Designs Against One Another

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Asheren View Post


    Indeed trying to use MBT in south american rainforest would be a very short pivot to asia...
    After so many of you mentioned Asia, I wonder now if that's not the true reason why the US is pushing forward this project.

    Maybe they did some studies of potential battles in that region that would involve tanks and realized that the Abrams is too heavy?

    It could be that they just want a modern prototype, get a design ready, but won't push it into (large) production.

    Also, doesn't the US Army keep telling Congress that they have enough Abrams, but Congress keeps ordering more and more tanks to keep the production line warm. If Congress is poised to spend money on armor, and you have enough MBT, might as well go for a niche model that makes sense only in some circumstances. Doesn't sound like a bad problem to have.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BogT View Post
      Yes, that is one of the products being tendered, along withe the Korean K21 and others

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Mastermind View Post
        Light armored vehicles are just that. they can be tank killers but only after being more-or-less jury-rigged with AT rockets- like the early GW-I Hum-Vees were. So, the question really is one of "How Much Armor?" and "How Light?" - If we have so many very effective MANPATs on the battlefield, why do we need these things? In VN, (I know- Here we go again!" right?), really, the only purpose for such vehicles is as transport for heavier AT weaponry- Light armor is as useless as no armor in the modern battle environment- other than some light protection against splinters. "Why?", we must ask, has the enemy AT weaponry been so effective- I'm talking about the RPG and all it's various upgrades and classes? Our M-113 ACAVs were nothing but vulnerable to any guy on the battlefield with a $14.50 RPG on his shoulder. My track took 4 in 9 months- one of which completely destroyed the vehicle and half the crew. The other 3 were against my new diesel-fueled track and only did superficial damage, though one of them got me my PH. So, IMHO, light armor is for suckers.

        US forces have been basically engaged against only light infantry with nothing but man-portable cheap commie crap for nearly 3/4 of a century and they have fought us and our super sophisticated un-endable supply of modern weapons to a standstill every time. Also, is it me or are we putting into question the value of our amazing air superiority capability? Why do we have these multi-hundred-million-dollar deluxe aircraft with ultra-precision weapons? Are they just for show?

        How many times have light armored vehicles been tried and always found wanting? They become nothing but death traps for their unfortunate crews when up against a serious and well-equipped opponent. If you want a near perfect air-droppable AT weapon system with high mobility to protect drop zones- what was wrong with the old M-151 mounted with a M-40 106 mm recc rifle? Lightweight, mobile, concealable, fast and deadly accurate?

        As for mines- it is not very likely an enemy will mine a surprise drop zone. they would have to mine half their nation's crop fields. I know the effect of light mines against light vehicles personally - and up close. They can stop a LAFV no problem. Although they seldom harm the crew- the real danger is from the shoulder-fired, close-in weaponry that has become all but unstoppable. So, why are we not depending on that? The enemy does.

        If I were going to be the God-All-High of LAFV design, I would equip each soldier with a fast (Like the SAW) tracked, lightly armored (against infantry rifle &MG fire) one-man fighting "Chariot" equipped with at least two.30 MG, or one .50 mg, very quick dismount, and with a couple of AT rockets or HE warhead bunker busters. These would drop with the man inside! Ready to roll the second of touch down. Dangerous? You say. I would call it a "S.W.A.R.M Vee." (Surface Warfare Air-droppable Rapid Mobility Vehicle) it might weigh in at 1.5 tons, tops! Dangerous? For whom? Imagine 300 of these bad boys rolling into town at 60 mph.

        If you are going to have "Light Armor"- It has to be a lot and it has to be terrifying to the enemy. Ten of these stupid things per battalion is just not going to do it.

        Besides all that, what the Hell are 60 million dollar freaking attack helicopters for?
        ,
        Mastermind
        I understand your pov but you are comparing an APC slightly upgraded (M113 ACAV) into a piss poor IFV and light tanks
        Not the same purpose
        We are pretty happy with our ERC-90 and AMX 10 RC
        And the South Africans are pretty happy with their Ratel and others light AFVs
        OK each of them had pretty close calls (2-3 years ago, our ERC90 were pitched against T55 in Chad and the crews had a lot of sweat drops with shells falling short of their vehicles)
        But for bush wars, light tanks proved useful
        They are however very dependant of both architecture and logitical footsteps (so prefered to be wheeled than tracked, on the contrary to US philosophy - that tried a change with the Stryker brigades) and the quality of their crews
        Had not the crews been SAF trained during Angolan wars or our Foreign Legion and Marine infantry crews during our several bush wars, of course going against T55, T62 or a barrage of RPGs or Saggers would have been more painful
        Beside that even heavy armor is not immune to RPGs or mines
        It all comes to combined arm use, intel, reco and quality of training and doctrine of use

        Comment


        • #34
          The Philippine Army, is going with a combination of Light tanks and wheeled tank destroyers. Tracked vehicles are a serious need over here due to better traction and off road capability specially when it rains in the boonies. The tracks ability to turn on its length is also a plus on Urban warfare like what happened in Marawi. Since the 2000 campaign against the Moros, which brought them don to size, combined arms tactics was developed due to losses on the APC brought about by guys in RPGs.

          Apparently there is a European offer, but so far no country has been mentioned all they said was it is joining the tender for both light Tanks and Wheeled Tank destroyers. Now the Army has been looking at the Centauro of Italy for a long time so that might be it.

          Main thing though is under our laws, the equipment must be either use by the country of origin or two other states.

          Comment


          • #35
            Tracked vehicles are a serious need over here due to better traction and off road capability specially when it rains in the boonies
            Now the Army has been looking at the Centauro
            Doesn't compute, the Centauro is a wheeled beast
            I understand the need for tracks in mud heavy environment but tracks make the vehicle heavier and i don't know a lot of Light tanks in the west to be tracked (tracks are mostly reserved to IFVs, HIFVs and MBTs....beside that, the concept of LCT or wheeled light armor with heavy gun is mostly a french and italian thing)
            Russians on the other hands have for example this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD

            Comment


            • #36
              Miss the part where, I mentioned the PA looking at LT and wheeled Tank Destroyers. I pointed out the Centauro in relation to European tender for both so it might be the Italians for the LT

              Comment


              • #37
                Still, considering the mass availability of MANPATs, in my mind, the answer is fast, light, hard-hitting and lots of 'em if we're talking light armor. There has to be a big change in doctrine regarding armor entirely.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Mordoror View Post



                  Doesn't compute, the Centauro is a wheeled beast
                  I understand the need for tracks in mud heavy environment but tracks make the vehicle heavier and i don't know a lot of Light tanks in the west to be tracked (tracks are mostly reserved to IFVs, HIFVs and MBTs....beside that, the concept of LCT or wheeled light armor with heavy gun is mostly a french and italian thing)
                  Russians on the other hands have for example this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD

                  AMX-10RC is a pretty awesome platform.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mordoror View Post



                    Doesn't compute, the Centauro is a wheeled beast
                    I understand the need for tracks in mud heavy environment but tracks make the vehicle heavier and i don't know a lot of Light tanks in the west to be tracked (tracks are mostly reserved to IFVs, HIFVs and MBTs....beside that, the concept of LCT or wheeled light armor with heavy gun is mostly a french and italian thing)
                    Russians on the other hands have for example this one : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2S25_Sprut-SD
                    Its due to the pressure applied on the ground, thought tracks are heavier they are more suited in mud operations. If you see the terrain of this country and its weather, there are just times, here wheeled vehicles cant go. This is why they are buying massive amounts of surplus M113s and upgrading them.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Soldat_Américain View Post


                      AMX-10RC is a pretty awesome platform.
                      Yes but old and soon to be phased out by introduction of Jaguar platform (so losing the low pressure 105 mm to a telescoped 40 mm and ATGMs)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Junglejim View Post
                        The Philippine Army, is going with a combination of Light tanks and wheeled tank destroyers. Tracked vehicles are a serious need over here due to better traction and off road capability specially when it rains in the boonies. The tracks ability to turn on its length is also a plus on Urban warfare like what happened in Marawi. Since the 2000 campaign against the Moros, which brought them don to size, combined arms tactics was developed due to losses on the APC brought about by guys in RPGs.

                        Apparently there is a European offer, but so far no country has been mentioned all they said was it is joining the tender for both light Tanks and Wheeled Tank destroyers. Now the Army has been looking at the Centauro of Italy for a long time so that might be it.

                        Main thing though is under our laws, the equipment must be either use by the country of origin or two other states.

                        It propably also lowers logistic costs considerably. Its much wasier to recover 30 tone light tank stuck in the mud than MBT. Storing ammunition in tropcics is considerably easier than ATGMs. Third ATGM effecitvness is heavily impacted in areas with high number of obstacles to both visibility and projectile itself.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

                          Yes but old and soon to be phased out by introduction of Jaguar platform (so losing the low pressure 105 mm to a telescoped 40 mm and ATGMs)
                          Although the EGRC Jaguar looks interesting. Losing that mobile gun platform seems strange to me. Especially when the Legion trains with both the AMX 10 RC and the ERC 90.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Soldat_Américain View Post
                            Although the EGRC Jaguar looks interesting. Losing that mobile gun platform seems strange to me. Especially when the Legion trains with both the AMX 10 RC and the ERC 90.
                            If i do remmember correctly the new 40mm is actualy more close to 76mm but with better ROF.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Junglejim View Post
                              Its due to the pressure applied on the ground, thought tracks are heavier they are more suited in mud operations. If you see the terrain of this country and its weather, there are just times, here wheeled vehicles cant go. This is why they are buying massive amounts of surplus M113s and upgrading them.
                              The Australians made very effective use of armor in Vietnam with Centurion's and M113's notably in areas where wheels wouldn't have made it or worked.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by gafkiwi View Post
                                The Australians made very effective use of armor in Vietnam with Centurion's and M113's notably in areas where wheels wouldn't have made it or worked.
                                Oh they know, from their neighbors experience or actual experience of what's left of the tracked combat vehicle they have... they kno down to their bones how effective those tanks can be. Right now they are just rebuilding what is lost and taking steps to get to that part where they can fully deploy MBTs.

                                Unlike our neighbors we dont have and unquestioned and unlimited defense budget, ergo baby steps. Call it an island mentality, cant see the enemy... it isnt there. Somehow going to the senate nd saying "We need 150 Leopard tanks, right away" would get a laugh and probably a "to fight what? bunch of armed monkeys in the boonies?"

                                Even the FA-50 program was questioned by some politicians till the marawi incident and those planes showed wht they were actually there for.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X