Pursuit Curve said:
Actually I do beleive they are Superior (CV90 vs M1 Abrams ), They are superior in one very inportant area, transportablilty! In fact, I beleive that the whole series of CV90 Vehicles is a good and sensible use of a chassis I have seen in a long time.
Of course in a direct comparison in combat survivable aspects would go to the Abrams, I would argue that you could get more CV90/120's to the fight than Abrams, and with essentially the same Smooth bore 120 it has the same punch, smaller signature and probably better cross country and fuel economy than an Abrams.
And wait, there is more, the AMOS Version ( I may be wrong in this, but what the hell) is another genesis of this successful chassis. Can you imagine a Brigade equipped with a common chassis, but each chassis has its own speciality? What a logistics coup it would be to be able to pack these beasts on C17's and get more of them to the fight, instead of having to wait for the large ocean going ships to arrive with the handful of Abrams!
I don't dislike the CV-90/120, but it is a light tank at best, it is NOT a main battle tank. It's armoured protection is seriously deficient when compared to an Abrams, it's cross country mobility is no greater, nor is it's firepower.
"Transportability" you say? How many 39 ton CV90120's are going to be able to be carried by C-17's with their 67 ton payload? My admittedly poor math skills indicate that only 1 can be carried. You might also get a "standard" CV-90 in there too, but at 26 tons even for the standard variant, it's pushing the upper limit. Your C-17 isn't going to have an especially great range carrying those 2...
In any case, NO heavy armour is transported by air, and I doubt you'll ever see CV-90's transported that way either. It's simply too in-efficient. Sea travel is the only existing economically and logistically viable way of deploying heavy armour, even for those very few countries that possess an airlifter capable of lifting it anyway. What fight have the US been involved in since they've had M1's, that they've needed them and been unable to get them there? None. The dual mortar tube AMOS turret can be fitted to virtually any armoured vehicle chassis.
You mentioned, Afghanistan. No Country currently deployed there has ANY heavy armour deployed. This is not soley due to the difficulty deploying such to a landlocked Country, but also due to the threat level. It simply doens't exist to justify the deployment of heavy armour. Light armoured vehicles such as LAV's and Bushmaster (as deployed by Australia) are ample.
Given that you are discussing this matter and referring to me, I presume you are suggesting that the CV-90 would be a better option for Australia than M1's and upgraded M113's?
Well, Australia has it's land 400 program which is going to replace ALL of our armoured vehicles from 2010 onwards. The M1A1 IS the main battle tank, that will fill that part of the project. It had to be brought forward due to the increasing obsolesence of our Leopard AS1's.
Our remaining M113's and ASLAV vehicles will be replaced with new build vehicles and CV-90 will no doubt be a strong competitor in this program. Australia by 2015 could well have it's mechanised brigade equipped with M1A1's, CV-90 IFV's, Archer/Caesar/G6-52 155mm SPG guns, NLOS-LS "netfires" missile systems, Tiger Armed Recon helo's/I-View TUAV's, Bushmaster IMV vehicles and a new wheeled armoured recon vehicle. Surely VERY few people would argue with the capabilities, of a brigade equipped like this??? It would on paper be as capable as any other similarly sized brigade in the world, IMHO...
