Light Tanks
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
FutureTank
Banned Member
Firstly its equipment that is already apid for
Secondly it is better then no 105mm weapon of any kind as there isn't one being projected now.
Thirdly MBTs are not the only targets on the modern battlefield, but IFVs are likely to lack the 105mm range.
And lastly, Australian Army is unlikely to purchase BMP-3s.
FutureTank
Banned Member
These links are from the 'Gavin' crowd who have a rather single-minded agenda.
The Australian M113 fleet is very old. The best of the hulls are being upgraded, and this is the last time they will be upgraded.
The next gun platform to mount a weapon like that suggested will be the LAND 400 design.
FutureTank
Banned Member
What would be the mission objective of such a hostile force deployment?
We have the capability to detect aircraft approaching, and even F-18s could intercept by the time such a force would get anywhere useful for deployment...and then what?
FutureTank
Banned Member
I think the intention is to manufacture an Australian design. I for one think the Australian industry is mature enough for the job though we may need to purchase some sub-systems from elsewhere.
This is not a few tanks we are talking about here, so send all that money to Germany when we have all the materials and skills to do the job in Australia
How about these ?Firstly its equipment that is already apid for
Secondly it is better then no 105mm weapon of any kind as there isn't one being projected now.
Thirdly MBTs are not the only targets on the modern battlefield, but IFVs are likely to lack the 105mm range.
And lastly, Australian Army is unlikely to purchase BMP-3s.
[img=http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5986/fnssbmd3turretonaifvlq5.th.jpg]
Turkish upgrade base on M113 with bmp-3 turrets
FutureTank
Banned Member
These are M765s, and I think the 105mm gun from a Leopard would do just as well on a new chassisHow about these ?
[img=http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5986/fnssbmd3turretonaifvlq5.th.jpg]
Turkish upgrade base on M113 with bmp-3 turrets
Or it could be an even bigger issue just getting there in the first place!
I think the key here is not making a tank lighter by reducing its armour but by making it smaller and keeping the armour levels up.
With the amount of automation and computer driven systems we are seeing in aircraft its about time this filtered down into a tank. Computer navigation/mapping, LCD screens displaying panaramic views with helmet aimed guns where the gunner just has to point his head at the target on the LCD screen and press a button. All these features could reduce the workload down to a driver/navigator and weapons systems operator.
As they would be sitting side by side the internal "cockpit inside the tank would be roughly a quarter of the volume of a conventional tank. So even if the armour was the same thickness as an M1 the tank would weigh under 20 tonnes.
Automation halves the amount of crew needed. This makes the tank half the size and a quarter of the weight. Yet even though this tank is a quarter of the weight its just as bullet proof and has just as much firepower as a tank 4 times its weight!
In addition to this you could reduce the armour, use a lightweight 70mm cannon and even go to a wheeled system like the M113. The weight could then drop below 15 tonnes and the mini tank could be transported by Hercules.
As this tank would end up being a heavily armoured 2 seat sports car with a big gun on the top, it would be realistic that it could even be developed in Australia using the numerous automotive manufacturers in the country. Definitely acheivable as it would be the electrical parts that would be hard. Would be a massive boost to the defence industry.
Similar to the Bushmaster, but two seat, more armour and a turret.
It definitely has to end though, instead of buying the best and usually the most expensive equipment they should drop a level down the list to the much cheaper equipment which is much better value for money.
With the amount of automation and computer driven systems we are seeing in aircraft its about time this filtered down into a tank. Computer navigation/mapping, LCD screens displaying panaramic views with helmet aimed guns where the gunner just has to point his head at the target on the LCD screen and press a button. All these features could reduce the workload down to a driver/navigator and weapons systems operator.
As they would be sitting side by side the internal "cockpit inside the tank would be roughly a quarter of the volume of a conventional tank. So even if the armour was the same thickness as an M1 the tank would weigh under 20 tonnes.
Automation halves the amount of crew needed. This makes the tank half the size and a quarter of the weight. Yet even though this tank is a quarter of the weight its just as bullet proof and has just as much firepower as a tank 4 times its weight!
In addition to this you could reduce the armour, use a lightweight 70mm cannon and even go to a wheeled system like the M113. The weight could then drop below 15 tonnes and the mini tank could be transported by Hercules.
As this tank would end up being a heavily armoured 2 seat sports car with a big gun on the top, it would be realistic that it could even be developed in Australia using the numerous automotive manufacturers in the country. Definitely acheivable as it would be the electrical parts that would be hard. Would be a massive boost to the defence industry.
Similar to the Bushmaster, but two seat, more armour and a turret.
I never heard of the general that wanted the second best weapon systems
It definitely has to end though, instead of buying the best and usually the most expensive equipment they should drop a level down the list to the much cheaper equipment which is much better value for money.
Nothing, as far as I know, but if you were to discover oil or some other future resource, then that would change the equation.
Look at the NW shelf... That is an area which wouldn't really need protecting if it were not for the industry there.
IMHO that is...
cheers
w
Numerous studies done by the US army have concluded that automation isn't there to the point where one can make an effective 2-man tank with the same capabilities as today's MBT. Three crewmembers seems to be as small as anyone wants to go.
Now one could still develop a 2-man AFV, if reduced crew performance is acceptable.
I think you need to take a step back and as just what is this AFV supposed to do? Is it an MBT replacement? Is it supposed to go toe-to-toe with Soviet style armored units?
Or is it a fire support/recon vehicle for light forces with secondary anti-armor capabilities?
If it's the former, then a 70mm conventional gun just isn't gonna cut it. It'd need supplementary ATGMs for tank killing.
Even if it's the later, a 70mm gun would likely be too small to carry a useful HE payload. Besides, there are no 70mm guns (or munitions) in service and this type of vehicle does not appear important enough to justify development of one, IMHO.
I think the intention is to manufacture an Australian design. I for one think the Australian industry is mature enough for the job though we may need to purchase some sub-systems from elsewhere.
This is not a few tanks we are talking about here, so send all that money to Germany when we have all the materials and skills to do the job in Australia
YES PLEASE!
WE NEED THE MONEY REALLY BAD!!!!
That is true, you would for sure be taking on a big gamble that you could make it to your air drops intact. It would take alot of effort and risk to ensure that you had a safe air corridor to these landing zones.
Which I would think is some of the reasoning behind the US not going to a true air droppable armored vehicle for the 82nd Airborne.
FYI, here's a Rand air-mech study paper.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/2005/DB321.pdf
So, basically. you say 105mm becouse you dont want to spend money developing something more apropriate. Not a wise move when building completely NEW, and likely very expencive vehicle. But i can see you point in case of 2th-rate military developers.Firstly its equipment that is already apid for
Secondly it is better then no 105mm weapon of any kind as there isn't one being projected now.
Thirdly MBTs are not the only targets on the modern battlefield, but IFVs are likely to lack the 105mm range.
And lastly, Australian Army is unlikely to purchase BMP-3s.
peterAustralia
Member
hi all
I the AAI RDF had a high velocity 75mm gun, not 70mm. A 76mm gun is still in use with the 8 tonne scorpion. Logically this is not going to happen in Australia as in a few years (10 -15years?) we will be replacing our M113s.
In vietnam Australia had a FSV (fire support vehicle), basically an M113 with a 76mm gun turret from the Saladin Armourned car. This is in effect a light tank. It is not designed to kill other tanks,but to provide support when tanks are not available. Thus it does not need a 120mm gun to kill other tanks.
One problem with the 120mm on a 20tonne vehicle si that it becomes large and boxy in sillouette. The contrast between the M8 AGS and the AAI RDF is startling. The M8 with a smaller gun should have a smaller turret and smaller sillouette, thus allowing for thicker armour.
A 90mm gun might be a good compromise, these are still being made. I think the Stingray II can come with a 90mm option.
The AMX 13 is a nice tank as a 'starting concept' for a new design. If Australia develops / buys a new APC then applying the AMX 13 layout to that new APCs hullform and drivetrain would make a useful vehicle.
By the way FutureTank, I know it was in a differnent thread, but you said that the British have no light tanks... well umm ..actually they still have scimitars and scorpions. You may have corrected yourself,, my apologies if you have already.
In reality these discussion are not likely to lead anywhere,, well at least for Australia, as we have no plans that I know off for a light tank, and cutting down an M113 chassis would take time to develop, by which time the M113 would only have a few years to go.
regards, peterAustralia
I the AAI RDF had a high velocity 75mm gun, not 70mm. A 76mm gun is still in use with the 8 tonne scorpion. Logically this is not going to happen in Australia as in a few years (10 -15years?) we will be replacing our M113s.
In vietnam Australia had a FSV (fire support vehicle), basically an M113 with a 76mm gun turret from the Saladin Armourned car. This is in effect a light tank. It is not designed to kill other tanks,but to provide support when tanks are not available. Thus it does not need a 120mm gun to kill other tanks.
One problem with the 120mm on a 20tonne vehicle si that it becomes large and boxy in sillouette. The contrast between the M8 AGS and the AAI RDF is startling. The M8 with a smaller gun should have a smaller turret and smaller sillouette, thus allowing for thicker armour.
A 90mm gun might be a good compromise, these are still being made. I think the Stingray II can come with a 90mm option.
The AMX 13 is a nice tank as a 'starting concept' for a new design. If Australia develops / buys a new APC then applying the AMX 13 layout to that new APCs hullform and drivetrain would make a useful vehicle.
By the way FutureTank, I know it was in a differnent thread, but you said that the British have no light tanks... well umm ..actually they still have scimitars and scorpions. You may have corrected yourself,, my apologies if you have already.
In reality these discussion are not likely to lead anywhere,, well at least for Australia, as we have no plans that I know off for a light tank, and cutting down an M113 chassis would take time to develop, by which time the M113 would only have a few years to go.
regards, peterAustralia
well, the "household cavalry" and the "blues and royals" still have light tanks. I'm sure there are more, but they're the more "visible" users.
We had a project to build an indigenious tank and MICV in the early 1980s. The MICV was Project Waler, which reached quite advanced proposals, while the tank project didn't IIRC receive a name. Both were canned because of the small numbers involved. We simply couldn't afford the costs involved for the numbers we would need. Considering our absymal past experience in the Arms market, I doubt we'd be able to sell many, if any to improve the economies of scale.I think the intention is to manufacture an Australian design. I for one think the Australian industry is mature enough for the job though we may need to purchase some sub-systems from elsewhere.
This is not a few tanks we are talking about here, so send all that money to Germany when we have all the materials and skills to do the job in Australia
FutureTank
Banned Member
That was a mistypeYES PLEASE!
WE NEED THE MONEY REALLY BAD!!!!
I meant 'to' send money to Germany.
In other words I think the IFV shoudl be primarily built in Australia from an Australian design