Recently I hoped onto a website (that I stupidly deleted my history so I cannot provide details) that discussed the advantages and disadvantages of light tanks, thes tanks I am refering to are generally reserved for reconnisance but generally have a 90-105mm Cannon. I believe that the purchase of these tanks or the keeping of the leopard I for the army would prove a great asset to the infantry and serve as a light armour division for one of RAR mechanised divisions.
Light Tanks
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
peterAustralia
Member
hi was is this
http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/infantrytanks.htm
this is a bit of a rant. i wonder if a 24.5 tonne M1 AGS is survivalble. it is certainly more mobile than a 55 to 65 tonne tank. there is also the Russian sprut, a new light tank based on lenghted BRDM chassis with 125mm gun. There is the Stingray II light tank at 22 tonnes. I also saw an experimental version of an M113 transformaed into a light tank. used a high velocity 75mm gum. think it weighed 15 tonnes approx, called AYRS or something?
According to wikipeadia the scorpion Light tnaks weighs 8.07 tonnes. thus a 24.5 tonne tank with add on spaced ceramic armour ought be reasonably survivable. I guess the issue is cost, also bigger logistic trail in having another vehicle in the inventory.
regards,
peterAustralia
http://www.geocities.com/armorhistory/infantrytanks.htm
this is a bit of a rant. i wonder if a 24.5 tonne M1 AGS is survivalble. it is certainly more mobile than a 55 to 65 tonne tank. there is also the Russian sprut, a new light tank based on lenghted BRDM chassis with 125mm gun. There is the Stingray II light tank at 22 tonnes. I also saw an experimental version of an M113 transformaed into a light tank. used a high velocity 75mm gum. think it weighed 15 tonnes approx, called AYRS or something?
According to wikipeadia the scorpion Light tnaks weighs 8.07 tonnes. thus a 24.5 tonne tank with add on spaced ceramic armour ought be reasonably survivable. I guess the issue is cost, also bigger logistic trail in having another vehicle in the inventory.
regards,
peterAustralia
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I agree. Something for the Brigades OTHER than 1 Brigade would be beneficial. Even if it where a wheeled vehicle with a 76mm/105mm sized gun would be better than the present situation. Puma would be a good choice for the Land 400 vehicle, so fitting a 105mm gun might provide a very useful capability...
Army looked at acquiring such a capability under the A21 trials, in lieu of operating a tank capability, but experimentation and "war gaming" showed that there are a lot of roles that ONLY MBT's can perform whereas "light tanks" or "armoured gun systems" cannot, hence the subsequent order for M1A1's.
However Army should operate such a vehicle in ADDITION to the tank capability. The current Government policy of purchasing high quality kit, but in-sufficient to equip ALL of Army has to end. I've no problem AT ALL, with high quality kit, but the kit (and associated supporting assets) should be purchased in sufficient quantities to allow Army to meet the direction given to it by Government, ie: simultaneous deployments of a Brigade AND a Battalion group in separate operational theatres, with EACH formation being capable of being sustained and rotated when necessary (ie: after at least 6 months but no more than 12 month deployment).
Army should be capable of meeting such a requirement across ANY spectrum of warfare, and this means Army requires 2 mechanised, motorised and Air Mobile brigades, when we barely have 1 of each at present (though we'll meet the criteria basically when the additional battalions come on line). A MUCH bigger equipment requirement than is currently being met...
talking of mobility ,just 5 days back indian army drove a t55 tank to an altitude of 17000 feet.i believe that medium tanks would be more sturdier than light tanks and hence will have better mobility with respect to endurance,while the light tanks by virtue of their lesser weight will have the advantage of better mobility with respect to speed.
I'm in general agreement with the idea of different horses for different courses, and especially a nation like Australia that is liable to have a lot of "away"-matches.
I think we should think of Light, medium and heavy forces, where light forces have high operational mobility and close to no tactical mobility - i.e. they get there fast to fight from prepared positions.
Now there isn't necessarily symmetri in the sense of a tank for heavy (armoured), medium (mechanised) and light (motorised) is as much as fighting from prepared positions without moving is kind of anathema to tanks.
Where I do see a need for light force is:
A vehikle that is:
1. Air portable and AIR SUPPLYABLE. (that limits weight - especially with the supply demand). But this will allow it to travel with light infantry and light artillery.
2. Armoured to protect against small-arms fire and RPG's.
3. Terrain mobility where tanks cannot go, because the only way this dumpster is going to survive MBT is by not meeting them.
4. Has the firepower to kill what they are liable to meet. MBT are best left to the dug in infantry. If weight limitations mean that that will limit it to a say 75mm and TOW-types, then so be it. The question is if the infantry wouldn't like such a beast when clearing out a jungle village "stronghold"?
If we are calling such a thing a tank, then no worries from me. Helicopters are the preferred solution at the moment; but they are of limited use in f.i. mountains AND they are supply heavy AND VERY expensive.
What I think we are in fact discussing is the need for a MEDIUM tank!
I.e. a vehikle for mechanised troops to cut of the heavy head of an enemy armoured thrust by trying to get behind their back, shoot up supply lines and destroy their artillery. That is in defence.
In offence it shall exploit the breaches made by the heavies - in particular the MBT - skirt the main defences, cut communications and head for command centers and such.
They must be suppliable - especially in fuel (as they are meant to drive rather than shoot).
Armoured to protect against MBT, that they might run into by mistake; but then in sufficient numbers (say a ration of 5-10:1).
Gunned to combat MBT as part of a combined arms force of infantry/artillery/cavalry - which might be acting as a bait to lure the enemy's MBT into a trap made of dismounted, mechanised infantry. I.e. they are not to seek out enemy MBT - they'll only get hurt by that tactic.
Good road capability, crossing ability over most bridges - especially where MBT can go - and simpler bridging equipment. This might mean a wheeled solution?
Hmm, right now i dont see any place for medium tank. Lets see what we call "medium tank"
1. Its much lighter than heavy tank, in 25-40t league.
2. It have cannon which able to penetrate enemy MBT's armor with APFSDS round.
Now, there is a fundamental problem here. Good gun & ammo ARE quite heavy. So your medium tank wouldnt have enouth armor to stand against enemy tanks main guns. Also, and thats much more important, the lack of armor will not allow reliable protection against infantry ATGM's & RPG-like weapons. So, the added armor doesnt offer much benefit compared to a more lighter BMP3-style vehiles - whereas reduced mobility and added weight certainly are disadvantage. So, realisticaly, you give up many important things for a high ballistic gun which is good only against enemy MBT's - and the medium tank is in natural disadvantage against them anyway. The more adequate aproach would be light tank (or better to call it IFV) - something in the lines of BMP-3 but without troop compartment. I.e. low ballistic gun to support infantry, ATGM's against enemy tanks, excellent mobility. We will probably see such things in not-so-distant future.
1. Its much lighter than heavy tank, in 25-40t league.
2. It have cannon which able to penetrate enemy MBT's armor with APFSDS round.
Now, there is a fundamental problem here. Good gun & ammo ARE quite heavy. So your medium tank wouldnt have enouth armor to stand against enemy tanks main guns. Also, and thats much more important, the lack of armor will not allow reliable protection against infantry ATGM's & RPG-like weapons. So, the added armor doesnt offer much benefit compared to a more lighter BMP3-style vehiles - whereas reduced mobility and added weight certainly are disadvantage. So, realisticaly, you give up many important things for a high ballistic gun which is good only against enemy MBT's - and the medium tank is in natural disadvantage against them anyway. The more adequate aproach would be light tank (or better to call it IFV) - something in the lines of BMP-3 but without troop compartment. I.e. low ballistic gun to support infantry, ATGM's against enemy tanks, excellent mobility. We will probably see such things in not-so-distant future.
The UK still makes extensive use of Scimitar light-tanks; they are incorporated into reconnaissance regiments of the Royal Armored Corps and ‘recce’ elements of armored infantry battalions. Scimitars are pretty fast and agile vehicles with a very low ground pressure and have been used extensively in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Armed only with 30mm Rarden cannon for self-defense they are often accompanied by Striker’s, a CVR(T) fitted with 10 swingfire anti-tank missiles, with a range of up to 4,000 m to deal with heavier armored threats. Both units weigh in at around 8-tonnes (common chassis). Being tracked, instead of wheeled means their cross-country performance is excellent. Even though both units are now pretty old (1970’s), they continue to provide excellent service. The scimitar is also capable of being air-dropped to support UK Para units.
I understand under FRES a tracke or wheeled replacement will be introduced as part of the medium forces component.
I understand under FRES a tracke or wheeled replacement will be introduced as part of the medium forces component.
well the US already could have such a "light" tank in the form of the M8 AGS equipped with a 105mm gun and autoloader,they even developed a 120mm gun version of it,called Thunderbolt.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8-AGS
it was airdeployable by C-130 and it could be uparmored to be resitant against 30mm cannon fire/RPG....
when only deploying the main rounds of the autoloader,it can carry 4 soldiers,sth like a "Mini-Merkava",and because it is tracked it has a much better offroad capability and i think they even wanted to deploy an electric-diesel drive,so you could drive stealth stile with only electric drive for short distances.
imo it is a big mistake that this project was cancelled,esspecially,the 101st and 82nd airborne have nothing like M551 Sheridan after these vehicles have been decomissioned!
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8-AGS
it was airdeployable by C-130 and it could be uparmored to be resitant against 30mm cannon fire/RPG....
when only deploying the main rounds of the autoloader,it can carry 4 soldiers,sth like a "Mini-Merkava",and because it is tracked it has a much better offroad capability and i think they even wanted to deploy an electric-diesel drive,so you could drive stealth stile with only electric drive for short distances.
imo it is a big mistake that this project was cancelled,esspecially,the 101st and 82nd airborne have nothing like M551 Sheridan after these vehicles have been decomissioned!
Did the 101st ever had the Sheridan? Not since they became an air assault division, I don't think.
I do believe there are valid requirements to improve the forced entry capability of the 82nd.
There also seem to be requirements to improve the firepower of light units in general.
Both reqs could be met by a light tank or armored gun, but I don't believe it's the only solution.
We've gotten a lot of mileage out of gun-trucking armored HMMWVs and larger trucks.
I remember reading about a combo RWS for the HMMWV that had a .50 cal, 40mm Mk19 and twin TOW launchers. Don't know what ever came of it.
You might be able to field 10 of these RWSs on armored HMMWVs for the price of one XM8 AGS.
oops,well, i thought because the Sheridan is an airdeployable(droppable?) vehicle and the 101st and 82nd is airborne,that these vehicles were in use by these division.sry
but the problem with the HMMWV is their poor offroad capability compared to a tracked vehicle,and you have to consider that if you put more and more of these "gadgets" (including armor to make them more survivable),the vehicle will be overloaded with the resulting problems connected to it.
and if it´s really that cheap to get 10 of these "superHMMWV" instead of a M8?sure about that?remember the fancy "gadgets"$$$
and the logistics behind that numbers not to forget!
but the problem with the HMMWV is their poor offroad capability compared to a tracked vehicle,and you have to consider that if you put more and more of these "gadgets" (including armor to make them more survivable),the vehicle will be overloaded with the resulting problems connected to it.
and if it´s really that cheap to get 10 of these "superHMMWV" instead of a M8?sure about that?remember the fancy "gadgets"$$$
and the logistics behind that numbers not to forget!
The 101st airborne is strictly air assault with helicopters, the 82nd Airborne had a battalion of M551 Sheridians in which they have gotten rid of them, they were supposed to take on the M8 AGS system due to this weapons platform being designed around them,but for some reason they decided not to go with it at the present time.
oops,well, i thought because the Sheridan is an airdeployable(droppable?) vehicle and the 101st and 82nd is airborne,that these vehicles were in use by these division.sry
but the problem with the HMMWV is their poor offroad capability compared to a tracked vehicle,and you have to consider that if you put more and more of these "gadgets" (including armor to make them more survivable),the vehicle will be overloaded with the resulting problems connected to it.
and if it´s really that cheap to get 10 of these "superHMMWV" instead of a M8?sure about that?remember the fancy "gadgets"$$$
and the logistics behind that numbers not to forget!
The 101st is an air assault division, not airborne. They use helos, not chutes.
HMMWVs aren't that bad off road, though obviously an RWS plus armor won't help. But is this really that important? Numbers do matter. Cost definitely matters.
Armored HMMWVs can be helolifted. They're already being built by the thousands.
They, along with TOW, .50 cal and Mk19s, are already in the TOE of (or in use by) both the 101st and 82nd and every other brigade and division in the Army.
Granted, they aren't very well armored.
The CROWS RWS costs around $300k, IIRC. Obviously this mega RWS would cost more. Adding a $180k TOW launcher plus Mk19 and integration, let's say it's $600k.
Add in another $150k for an armored HMMWV and you're still less than a million.
IIRC, we were looking at $10 mil per XM8.
Logistics? Like i said before, Armored HMMWVs are already in the log pipeline of every division and brigade. The only specialized parts would be those for the RWS system. And M1114s get several times the gas mileage of an XM8.
So, IMHO, you could support 8-10 M1114s with the same log backend as one XM8 (discounting the additional personnel needed for the M1114s).
Plus, someday we may see fruits from the FCS-MCS, which will put the XM8 to shame (and cost even more).
And there've been reports of drop tests of simulated Stryker MGS loads from C-17s.
I just think the cost of a small production run light tank/AGS just isn't worth the benefit.
Adapt an existing, fielded design to the task. Or something you already have in the development pipeline.
FutureTank
Banned Member
What?! Do you have a link to this wonder weapon? I wouldn't have thought it possible to mount a 125mm weapon on a BRDM chassis no matter how lengthened
its not new. its about 20 years old.What?! Do you have a link to this wonder weapon? I wouldn't have thought it possible to mount a 125mm weapon on a BRDM chassis no matter how lengthened
http://www.enemyforces.com/artillery/sprut.htm
3 basic models:
Sprut-A 2A45 Pure towed gun.
Sprut-B 2A45M Self propelled towed gun.
Sprut-SD 2S25 A self propelled gun mounted on the BMD-3 chassis with a turret mounting the stabilised 2A75 125mm smoothbore gun
He-he, not only the 'bloody' russians but also the Americans were able to do soWhat?! Do you have a link to this wonder weapon? I wouldn't have thought it possible to mount a 125mm weapon on a BRDM chassis no matter how lengthened
M8 with 120mm MG AND 4-member infantry appartament:
It needs additional explanation: 2A75 125mm MG has the same capability (high ballistics, accuratness) as the MG of T-90 or even more if the new autoloader is installed. Indeed Sprut remain partly classified device, is not offered for the broad export, unlike T-90S. For example: it isnt presented in Rosoboronexport catalog. The last modification seems to be on the modernised chassis and has new improved sight and FCS, probably the new autoloader with the capability to fire longer APFSDSs. Obviousely it has full capability for using MG ATGMs just like T-90, all those on the ~15 t airdropped and sailing vehicle. You can see well the difference between the standard and modernised vehicles:
Last edited: