Light Tanks

The 7.62 isn't my main complaint. It would be nice to see a stinger/javelin/whatever you need missile system more or less built into the turret design. .50 cal having problems with jamming up? Well, you fix the gun design then. The .50 is a nice addition once you sort out that problem. Much rather that than the .... M2?? M-60 would be better if the .50 cal is not feasible.
 
I think that there is no need at the moment for light tanks.....
in my opinion vehicles like the bradley or our Puma and recon vehicles like our fennek share the job for now
 
Pollux said:
I think that there is no need at the moment for light tanks.....
in my opinion vehicles like the bradley or our Puma and recon vehicles like our fennek share the job for now
Click to expand...
The reason the Bradley does not fit the role of "Light Tank" is simple. For one, its huge. That makes it a big target and makes it less useful for Airborne and recon. The only thing light about the Bradley is its main gun. Its also not much faster than the USA's M1 Abrams MBT so the Light Tank concept of greater mobility isn't there. The Bradley fits beautifully into the up and coming concept of the "all in one" armored vehicle role.

I don't know enough about the Puma to say one way or the other how well it fill the role. To my knowledge, most of what the USA has that moves fast is often poorly armored.

The Light Tank is a concept that is at least worth exploring. Gimme a change to redesign the M8 and I think I could give you on helluva light tank, but I'd pretty much have to start from scratch.

The M8 at least fills the Airborne's needs fairly well. Even for them, I think it should be a bit faster.
 
Can it be any faster without sacrificing something somewhere? The M8 has to be able to perform a stopgap MBT role if required.
 
the bradley is like a multi purpose fighting APC

as for light tanks, id say those stykers etc are light tanks, sure tracks have been changed for wheels... but thats what they are supposed to be... personally i reckon an up-armored hummer is good eneugh... fast, smaller target and can be armed with 50 cals, tows etc... im sure that an up armored apc can take more of a beating than a stryker or bushmaster...
 
rocco said:
the bradley is like a multi purpose fighting APC

as for light tanks, id say those stykers etc are light tanks, sure tracks have been changed for wheels... but thats what they are supposed to be... personally i reckon an up-armored hummer is good eneugh... fast, smaller target and can be armed with 50 cals, tows etc... im sure that an up armored apc can take more of a beating than a stryker or bushmaster...
Click to expand...


Well the 25MM Bushmaster on the Bradley always served me damn well and had a rate of fire that was exactly what was needed with both the rate of fire and reliability using HE or Sabo, that was necessary.
 
Big disagreement.
The US Military is in huge demand for a light vehicle that can be transported by a C-130. Rapid deployment for a vehicle that is a substitute for a real tank. The Bradley hasn't got the firepower of a tank and it's too bulky and heavy for rapid deployment troops.
The M-8 does just that. The 105mm should be sufficient to take on and destroy most of the world's tanks, not to mention it's useful to take out fortified positions.
The M-8 is more mobile and has more firepower than the Bradley. That's why it's neccessary.

Pollux said:
I think that there is no need at the moment for light tanks.....
in my opinion vehicles like the bradley or our Puma and recon vehicles like our fennek share the job for now
Click to expand...
 
I can see the M8's usefulness for Airborne and its huge. They essentially have a MBT that is small enough for the 82nd to carry around with them on a jump into hostile territory. Lovely for the Airborne!

Now, lets focus on the rest of the picture. The M8 is useless to non-Airborne units - why have a miniturized version of the M1 Abrams when you can just have the Abrams? Its not any faster, has less firepower, less armor, it's an automatic loader and has a smaller main gun. So, there's no good reason to deploy it with anything but the Airborne.

Now we know that the UK's Scimetar tops out at 80kph, so we know that 73kph -- 45mph -- is not some unbreakable ceiling that no tracked vehicle can surpass. We know that a tank can potentially go faster than the M8. The United States just hasn't made one yet. I imagine that much has to be sacrificed, but consider -- right now the United States doesn't need another MBT nor do they need another all-in-one, yet they most definitely COULD use a fast moving tank with reasonably strong armor and a good mix of firepower. If you want to focus on speed and very little protection, the Humvee works. Then again, the Humvee isn't that great at running over/smashing through small trees and brush -- making its own path where a path doesn't exist. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm perceiving an unfilled role here. That or the Brits are just stupid for coming up with the Scimetar --- unlikely.
 
Yeah, I noticed that. The truth of the matter is, its not really a "Light Tank" in the same terms that you normally think of them in. Its perfect for the Airborne except that its high profile makes it an easier target than it should be. Take the same chasis and throw a half Stinger, half Tow or Javelin turret design with a 25mm or 30mm gun similar to the Bradley's. Make both designs available to the Airborne and I think they're doing really well in the armor department.

What does the USA have right now that fits this role: Fast, good on all terrain, well protected from small arms fire and has a broad assortment of weapons options available?
 
I suppose that the Stryker fits the role I'm thinking of unless anyone can think of a problem. The only potential problem I'm seeing is the wheels. Are they solid rubber or filled with air? If filled with air, small arms fire can take the legs ouf from under the Stryker. The rest of its looks pretty well protected from small arms though. How good is the armor?

I must say that 100kph -- 62mph is more the sorts of speed I'm thinking of. I wonder if tracked vehicles uare just incapable of that sort of speed? I'd been mostly ignoring the Stryker and its kind because of the what I mentioned about the wheels.
 
For the past couple of years, I have been working with the LockMart LOSAT team and have seen the missile do some serious hurt to armor, any armor. The system is a little touchy to set up and keep accurate. When that problem gets worked out, I would not want to be in a tank of any design. There is also the danger of the small,one man, shoulder fired missile called the Javelin. I've seen one hit an old Russian tank over the horizon and the turret parts were about all that was immediately distinguishable.

As great as I thought the Javelin is, most of our contacts say they like the elderly but somewhat updated TOW better. As long as a man or small team can do the same damage to armor as an A10, I don't know which vehicle I could say I felt reasonably safe in. I think the Israeli reactive armor is about as good as it gets right now. Just my thoughts.
 
I was thinking the armor might be more of a problem.
Wheels... yeah but they can run on flat for a long time.
I guess it just makes sense that wheels travel faster than tracks.
 
Was the Russian tank equipped with some reactive armor perchance? Anything along those lines? I wonder why the TOW is considered better. The Javelin is certainly easier to carry by all accounts I've seen.
 
Why is the TOW being compared to the Javelin? They fit two different roles. The TOW being a heavy anti-tank weapon while the Javelin is a medium anti-tank weapon.

The tank is question was not fitted with reactive armor. The tank was packed with explosives as well which greatly increased the effect of the Javelin.
 
Kozzy Mozzy said:
Why is the TOW being compared to the Javelin? They fit two different roles. The TOW being a heavy anti-tank weapon while the Javelin is a medium anti-tank weapon.
Click to expand...
Not sure. Maybe cuz I mentioned both of them or something.

The tank is question was not fitted with reactive armor. The tank was packed with explosives as well which greatly increased the effect of the Javelin.
Click to expand...
CHEATERS!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top