Light Tanks

[eckherl]

Yes that is the cononundrum. The medium tank should avoid - if possible the enemy's MBT. I should be able to that partly by going where MBT can go aand by being faster on the march.

But You are right: Is there an acceptable solution?

No there is not a acceptable solution unless you are going to use them in the following scenario`s.

1. Recon
2. Airborne assetts
3. Rear security

 

[Ths]

eckherl: I think you are right, there are at the moment not likely to be an acceptable GENERAL solution, there might be one in certain scenarios.

The situation is somewhat like the Naval problem between WW1 and WW2, there really wasn't an alternative to the Battleships. The situation changed due to new technological developments.

Not that I personally (in my limited experience) can see any immediate break-throughs on tank problem.

 

[eckherl]

eckherl: I think you are right, there are at the moment not likely to be an acceptable GENERAL solution, there might be one in certain scenarios.

The situation is somewhat like the Naval problem between WW1 and WW2, there really wasn't an alternative to the Battleships. The situation changed due to new technological developments.

Not that I personally (in my limited experience) can see any immediate break-throughs on tank problem.

I do like Russia`s approach though when it comes to their firepower that is associated with their Airborne units, this has always been impressive in my opinion, if they get behind you with enough hardware they can most certainly tie up follow on units/logistics or cause you to break away some of your units to deal with this new threat.

 

[B.Smitty]

I do like Russia`s approach though when it comes to their firepower that is associated with their Airborne units, this has always been impressive in my opinion, if they get behind you with enough hardware they can most certainly tie up follow on units/logistics or cause you to break away some of your units to deal with this new threat.

If they could somehow get their huge, lumbering transports through the fighter and SAM screen AND keep those armored vehicles resupplied.

 

[FutureTank]

its not new. its about 20 years old.

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

Mate, I think Peter just got carried away and mistyped BRDM
I'm not usually caught out on Russian stuff, particularly since BRDM is out of production. It just doesn't have the volume to take a 125mm weapon, even a low pressure one.

 

[FutureTank]

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. 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:

I was told a story which I'm not entirely happy to accept, but originally the gun was supposed to be on the what is now the Nona vehicle, but the 120mm mortar was prefered weapon of choice at the time. The issue was that there was such a long wait with the BMD-3 development that the Ministry went with whats available although the gun launched ATGWs were always intended to be used within the airborne TO&E since the ASU-85 was phased out in the 80s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Mate, I think Peter just got carried away and mistyped BRDM

I assumed that it was probably a finger translation problem...

 

[FutureTank]

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.

It seems to me (from discussion elsewhere) that it would be usefull to define what is a light tank, and how it would fit into the doctrine and the Army structure before discussing its specs.

The truth is that it IS possible to design a vehicle capable of having the Leopard 1 turret mounted onto a new chassis that woudl produce a very much lighter version of a 105mm armed AFV. Will this be a 'light' tank because of the weight? I would be inclined to suggest that such a vehicle would be more of an FSV with a very capable weapon.

 

[Chrom]

It seems to me (from discussion elsewhere) that it would be usefull to define what is a light tank, and how it would fit into the doctrine and the Army structure before discussing its specs.

The truth is that it IS possible to design a vehicle capable of having the Leopard 1 turret mounted onto a new chassis that woudl produce a very much lighter version of a 105mm armed AFV. Will this be a 'light' tank because of the weight? I would be inclined to suggest that such a vehicle would be more of an FSV with a very capable weapon.

But what a purpose of 105mm high-ballistic cannon? It dont have enouth penetration against MBT, and have much less firepower & flexibility than 100mm low balistic gun. So all these troubles installing high-ballistic gun for what? For imaginary chance with side-shot against enemy MBT?

 

[lobbie111]

Due to Australias harsh and open environment in the centre or the country particually the deserts Australia needs some light mobile forces, But as they are not likely to encounter dismounted infantry a force is needed with light 76-105mm guns, command, anti tank, anti air, ambulance and APC. This would take a significant load off the coastal defences which currently are expected to cover inland areas aswell

 

[Distiller]

Due to Australias harsh and open environment in the centre or the country particually the deserts Australia needs some light mobile forces, But as they are not likely to encounter dismounted infantry a force is needed with light 76-105mm guns, command, anti tank, anti air, ambulance and APC. This would take a significant load off the coastal defences which currently are expected to cover inland areas aswell

What is that? A rumored Aborigine rebellion?
I plead for railroad artillery!
Last stand at Mt Olga.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Due to Australias harsh and open environment in the centre or the country particually the deserts Australia needs some light mobile forces, But as they are not likely to encounter dismounted infantry a force is needed with light 76-105mm guns, command, anti tank, anti air, ambulance and APC. This would take a significant load off the coastal defences which currently are expected to cover inland areas aswell

Why? What's there worth protecting?

FYI, Army's 2nd Division (basically all the reserve units) operate the types of capability you suggest we need, except for the 76-105mm guns, anti-air capacity and APC.

What they do have is light motorised capabilities with Perentie styled Land Rover IMV vehicles, to allow the infantry and supporting assets needed to cover the vast distances of this wide Brown land, plus artillery, light recon assets and a range of "direct fire" capabilities.

I agree that 2nd Division should be equipped with capabilities that at least resemble those of the 1st Division, rather than the huge differences that are appearing at present, but it won't happen without massive funding boosts for ADF.

Even if this money magically appeared from somewhere, there are still massive gaps in capability in the regular force to fill first, ie: a medium ranged GBAD capability, an armoured Bridge laying and a mechanised minefield "breaching" capability and other field engineering capabilities we operate only on "paper", a decent IFV for 1 Brigade, the list goes on...

 

[lobbie111]

Although it is typically not worth defending it would not be wise to just leave it be if there were an enemy in that area

 

[Aussie Digger]

Although it is typically not worth defending it would not be wise to just leave it be if there were an enemy in that area

Yes, but you need to consider a few things. Firstly, the centre of Australia is an AWFULLY long way from anywhere. Go there some time. You'll see that no sane enemy would WANT to go there.

Secondly, how is this enemy force going to get there? Unless teleporting beams are invented shortly, they are going to have to fly there, or come over a beach. I'm fairly certain ADF would take notice of EITHER of those 2 things occuring...

Thirdly, most forces do things operationally with some goal in mind. Unless they wish to gain control of Alice Springs and Uluru, I fail to see the point of going to the middle of Australia.

Fouthly, even if despite the above points some insane enemy achieved all this, can you imagine the logistical trail leading back through Australia to somewhere this force could be supported from? I think the ADF might notice this too...
:nutkick

 

[peterAustralia]

today I came across these sites, well rediscovered them.

http://tanks2go.com/United_States/USrdflt.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/tankita2.html

It is the RDF light tank (developed via AAI cooroparation with DARPA? going on memory, not certain..)

The plus with this is that it is derived from the M113. Thus for countries with the M113 in service it would be a nice add-on. The logistics trail being that much easier without having to acquire new engines, drivetrains, headlights etc etc.

The 75mm gun is very long, but would be of some use against the enemy, if only based on the fact that the Israeli 60mm gun seems to go OK. I guess a pair of wire guided missiles might be a nice add on too (that is another story).

By cutting down on the superstructure greatly it allows a much better armouring that on a stock APC. Sillouette seems quite low too. Weighing out at 14.5 tonnes logic would suggest it being more armourned than the 8.07 tonne british scorpion. Obviously it is air transportable in a C-130, logically it would be cheap to make, buy an existng turret and place it on an existing if cut down M113 chassis.

I hope these links are of help to some people. Oh yes.. I was wrong about the Sprut being developed from BMD -3 chassis and not BRMD as I said.. I will make sure it does not happen again.

peterAustralia

 

[lobbie111]

true but it could pose significant advantages for instance a long range air defence system could be placed somewhere there because thats the place no-one would look

 

[Aussie Digger]

true but it could pose significant advantages for instance a long range air defence system could be placed somewhere there because thats the place no-one would look

Yeah okay fair point I suppose. :hitwall

 

[lobbie111]

and all is required is a rough landing optimised aircraft like a C-130

 

[Aussie Digger]

and all is required is a rough landing optimised aircraft like a C-130

Indeed. Perhaps you could email Brendan Nelson with this and make him aware of it?

You can contact him here:

http://www.brendannelson.com.au/contact_def.asp

 

[eckherl]

If they could somehow get their huge, lumbering transports through the fighter and SAM screen AND keep those armored vehicles resupplied.

Which could be a issue if their main attack formations cannot link up with them.