Light Tanks

Big_Z said:
Isnt America working on a light tank at the moment?
Click to expand...

It was. The M8 Armored Gun System was to enter service in 98 I believe, but was cancelled to fund the Stryker program. From what I hear the little thing was really good, had a nice 105mm gun, good protection, and good mobility.

It was to replace the Sheridan light tanks, which have been in service since Vietnam and kind of suck. They are only in service with 82nd in small numbers.

The current incarnation of the light tank in the US army is the Stryker MGS.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm
 
Its not a tank but its light and goes really fast, can carry troops and even has a medical style one. I dont know the name its new for the US
 
The M8 AGS Buford isn't really much of a light tank. The only advantage is compactness for airborne ops. Otherwise, its useless. As you could read from earlier in the thread, the M8 has exactly the same top speed as the Bradley and older M1 Abrams -- 45mph.
 
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.

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...

If you read the article in the news, TOWS and JAVELINS as well as tank fire were both used to disassemble the stronghold of Uday and Qusay(sp?)
and a lot depends on the particular warhead. Just like the M-79 grenade launcher, different types of rounds can be used.

I have a field film clip of the Javelin shot if anyone would like to judge for yourself. This particular clip is declassified.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. There has certainly been more extensive battle experience with the TOW. Maybe the Army/Marines dislike change when something has worked since the `60s.
 
As far as I know the Javelin is considered better because it is fire and forget. While the TOW needs constant guidance to it's target.
 
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.

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...

Would you like to take a tank into battle without being full of explosives?
The idea of the test is to see if the warhead can penetrate enough to reach those explosives.
 
Seems that the TOW or the Javelin would both be quite useful. Mounting a Javelin launcher would be more compact with more shots, right? The TOW-2 system, from the reviews is considered a better system but its also definitely larger. If your conceiving of a version of either the Stryker or the M8 that focuses on missiles, then you're going to want Stingers or something comparable. You'll also probably want to be packing some substantial machine gun. Lastly a good anti-armor system. For that ... well, you've got some options obviously. LOSAT sounds like a winner to me --- so maybe its not a choice between Javelin and TOW at all.

Still wish I knew more about the Stryker's wheels. Solid rubber or filled with air?? Anybody know for sure??
 
Here is another link about the Stryker. Someway down it mentions that the Stryker has 'run flat' tyres so that would indicate that they are air-filled.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Stryker,,00.html

I think the 8-wheel concept is quite a good one myself. The Spahpanzer Luchs in service with the Bundeswehr is also an 8-wheel design. What I liked about the Luchs is that it has 2 drivers at each end allowing the Luchs to get the hell outa there no matter which way it's facing. :) It also has run-flat tyres btw. I'm guessing that a lot of the influence of the Stryker design has been taken from the Luchs.
 
Missileer said:
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.

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...

Would you like to take a tank into battle without being full of explosives?
The idea of the test is to see if the warhead can penetrate enough to reach those explosives.
Click to expand...

No, not really. The idea of the *demonstration* was to show off the Javelin's power.

Of course a Javelin can penetrate the roof of a T-72, but it will not have such a catastrophic effect, even if the ammo cooked off.
 
godofthunder9010 said:
Seems that the TOW or the Javelin would both be quite useful. Mounting a Javelin launcher would be more compact with more shots, right? The TOW-2 system, from the reviews is considered a better system but its also definitely larger. If your conceiving of a version of either the Stryker or the M8 that focuses on missiles, then you're going to want Stingers or something comparable. You'll also probably want to be packing some substantial machine gun. Lastly a good anti-armor system. For that ... well, you've got some options obviously. LOSAT sounds like a winner to me --- so maybe its not a choice between Javelin and TOW at all.

Still wish I knew more about the Stryker's wheels. Solid rubber or filled with air?? Anybody know for sure??
Click to expand...

TOW-2 is vehicle mounted, Javelin is man portable. Javelin has a 2.5km range, TOW-2 has a 3.75km range
 
Doppleganger said:
Here is another link about the Stryker. Someway down it mentions that the Stryker has 'run flat' tyres so that would indicate that they are air-filled.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Stryker,,00.html

I think the 8-wheel concept is quite a good one myself. The Spahpanzer Luchs in service with the Bundeswehr is also an 8-wheel design. What I liked about the Luchs is that it has 2 drivers at each end allowing the Luchs to get the h**l outa there no matter which way it's facing. :) It also has run-flat tyres btw. I'm guessing that a lot of the influence of the Stryker design has been taken from the Luchs.
Click to expand...
Reason I was curious on the tires was -- I opperated a forklift at an old job and it's tires were solid rubber. Figured that an armored military vehicle would have done the same ... but that a helluva lot of rubber and weight I suppose. BIG difference in tire size from a forklift. Likely to slow you down.

Runflat is lovely and all, but if a group of enemy soldiers unload a few AK-47 clips on nothing but the tires, how opperational is the Stryker thereafter? That's the dilema I'm seeing but I don't feel I know enough to call it a fatal flaw. Seems to be a weakness.

As far as the Javelin, I guess I figured it had a mobile vehicular model as well, or that one could easily be developed if it didn't already exist. In terms of supporting the Airborne units, I'd say let the people on foot carry the handheld Javelins and the Armored vehicle can be equipped with the TOW-2 or LOSAT (whichever is preferred). That way, you carry more options going in.
 
The Stryker's tiars are air filled.
in order to load the Stryker MGS, they actually have to deflate the tiars or it won't really fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top