FutureTank
Banned Member
Ok, lets live Light tanks aloneMaybe we should concentrate on one thread.
We are now talking about the same topic in two threads.
Were do we want to meet?
Light Tanks
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
You amuse me, FT.I'm really starting to like you Rickshaw
It was the aliens, you realise, don't you?Its a mystery
There is nothing mysterious about Project Management. The problem is that it has been given this mysterious aura by its practioners in order to disguise that its just plain old management - skills which unfortunately have been subsumed in a whole lot of other bullshit.
As I said there were many stories. I am sure some are actually factual.
Sure, as long as we stopped producing planes and ships. We didn't have the resources and manpower to afford all three.
Worst? Nay, the M3 was a long way from being the worst. That would have to go to the Italian's. When the M3 appeared, it was the most powerful medium in the world.
It was a very good tank but it was, like the M1a1 the wrong tank for what we were facing.
Filthy lucre or rather the lack of it.
Not a main battle tank, but an AFV that can beat anything except a main battle tank.
Take a standard bushmaster.. chop 2metres off the wheelbase, weight is now below 10 tone. Put a lightweight cannon on top, atleast 60mm. and maybe a small remote controled gun like on the Humvee. Add a bit of extra armour underneith and on the sides and you have a 15 tone fighting vehicle. Less weight, more firepower and better armour than an ASLAV.
Now the internal space would be reduced from 10 people to 2 or 3. This would be enough to have one driving, one firing the main cannon and one firing the small machine gun.
This vehicle could easily be built in Australia and be used in every area of the army. Its light and mobile enough to go with the light infrantry brigades yet powerful enough to fight beside an M1 main battle tank. Basically a jack of all trades vehicle that can easily fit in a Herc. M1 is overkill in most situations so they would bring a bushmaster tank instead.
I did a couple photochopped versions to show what it would look like.
BushMaster Tank picture 1
BushMaster Tank picture 2
original pic 1 original pic 2
Sensors and night vision equipment are what made the M1 tanks slaughter the Iraqi's, put some high quality sensors on these little tanks and they will definitely kick ass!
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
You forgot to add the spades to handle the recoil of the gun. A vehicle that light, attempting to fire a high velocity gun, will not do so well and may find itself with it's front wheels off the ground regularly... Perhaps you'd better "pimp up" the suspension a bit too with some nice South Central LA styled "pneumatic kits"...
nfloorl: You can also forget about any kind of "fire on the move" capability.
In addition to which you want the vehicle for use as an "infantry support" vehicle. This means it has to travel at virtually infantry pace. To do so and remain survivable it's going to require FAR more armour than any 4 wheeled vehicle is going to be able to manage.
Perhaps you should photo "chop" the wheels off and replace them with tracks.
Then you might approach what the vehicle would look like.
Of course this would completely ignore the results of Army's A21 trials which showed that wheeled fire support vehicles were not likely to prove survivable in future conflict, hence the acquisition of a new tank...
Why 60mm? A 30mm autocannon is big enough to kill virtually every AFV out there that's not a tank. 60mm is overkill. It'll have fewer stowed kills and won't even have a useful HE round.
Even with a 60mm, you wouldn't want to use this vehicle against enemy armor. It's only protected vs smallarms. At best it would be tasked with infantry support - taking out field fortifications, and so on.
For that, you'd need a larger gun firing a sizable HE round.
My guess is the Bushmaster chassis just isn't designed for this. I'm sure you could come up with a variant like the old US LAV-150 that could mount a Cockerill 90mm or maybe even a 120mm gun-mortar, but it would be a major redesign.
It would be far cheaper to retask some of your ASLAVs with a new turret. As there have already been many different turrets integrated with the LAV II series.
I guess it just depends on whether you feel you need an indigenous production capability.
15 ton vehicles can handle guns upwards of 90mm without much issue. But a vehicle based on a truck chassis & suspension might have problems. I'm sure it could be beefed up, but at some point it just isn't worth the cost, IMHO. Better to just buy an existing, foreign design. Unless you think there's a large export market.You forgot to add the spades to handle the recoil of the gun. A vehicle that light, attempting to fire a high velocity gun, will not do so well and may find itself with it's front wheels off the ground regularly... Perhaps you'd better "pimp up" the suspension a bit too with some nice South Central LA styled "pneumatic kits"...
You can also forget about any kind of "fire on the move" capability.
It shouldn't need "far" more survivability if used properly. It couldn't be used as aggressively as an MBT, but could provide a useful capability, IMHO.
In the battle of Fallujah, the US Marines used a significant number of unarmored and armored HMMWVs carrying TOWs, .50cals and Mk19s as gun trucks. This would just do them one better.
What types of conflicts were modeled? Certainly a wheeled FSV won't have sufficient armor to stand up to a Soviet-style mechanized formation, but for small-scale conflicts that are all the rage these days, one certainly could play a role. Otherwise the US wouldn't be going forward with the Stryker MGS.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I guess it's a bit hard to say really, Army never publicly released the results, however high level ATGW threats figured prominently in Army's guesses about it's future operational environment, hence the strong desire for a heavily armoured Leopard replacement...
I don't disagree with the need for greater fire support for the Digs, on the contrary I'd VERY much like to see more capability. But I do think there are higher priorities than this to fill first, in Army's "capability gaps".
As I said earlier, any deployed Army force, expecting to face an armoured threat OR an ATGW threat is going to have M1A1's with it. The need then for another large calibre gun based FSV, then becomes questionable IMHO.
Remember Australia is unlikely to deploy larger than Brigade sized formations on ops and it's unlikely the whole mechanised brigade would be deployed simultaneously, simply because of our inability to relieve it, thanks to our "Army of 2's" idea...
DoA operations are a different kettle of fish but are a MOST unrealistic scenario in my book and there's even more capability gaps in our forces designed for DoA operations, than the lack of a large calibre FSV...
Like the lack of ANY armoured vehicle capacity, of even the standard of your armoured HMMWV's for starters...
Agreed. An FSV like this would not be survivable in that environment.
I can see a desire to build a mine/IED/smallarms/RPG resistant multipurpose chassis that could be used economically in LICs and in MP units, basically a modern version of the US ASV.
You could base it on the Bushmaster's automotive components, but I imagine you'd want a new chassis design.
Given the level of interest mine/IED resistant vehicles are getting these days, it might have significant export potential.
Agreed.
Thank you for going to the trouble of making the pictures rjmaz1, and your support of the Bushamaster, but NO. the C of G is too high for starters.
It does look mean though.
cheers
w
FutureTank
Banned Member
Yes, there is not much new to project management. However what changed is the way management teams are put together. When I started out, teams were put together from within the org, and based on relative knowledge of the goals and their relationship to people's other work. Now teams are often semi, or fully hired from the outside just because they have appropriate quals, and for duration of project only. Its a complete BS.
Ok, I should have said worst Allied tank.
I'm nt going to go into the Sentinel argument. My point is that Australian designers and manufacturers produced a quality AFV from scratch with no prior expereince.
What is 'lucre'?
FutureTank
Banned Member
That set of images of Bushmaster FSV reminds me of the French predisposition for gun-armed armoured cars, which is what it is. I always found armoured cars hard to justify tactically, although the Soviets kept using BRDMs for decades, so there must be something good about them, and the Australian Army had all manner of them until the 70s I think.
I think the future battle environment will be significantly impacted by the energy sector, and fossil fuel energy in particular. Conflicts will still arise, and people will still fight, but in many parts of the World, including Australian region of interest, the combatants will not be able to afford to operate many vehicle mounted weapons, particularly heavy armoured vehicles with high fuel demands. This will make heavy infantry weapons far more prevalent on the battlefields Australians are likely to fight on, and will require survivability at longer range to be a dominant design constraint. However this can not be satisfied by adding armour because of the fuel situation (unless there is a radical new technology breakthrough in next 20-40 years).
The question to ask with a light tank or tank-like AFV is will it survive an encounter with a heavy ATGW armed enemy at 3-4000 metres?
I think the future battle environment will be significantly impacted by the energy sector, and fossil fuel energy in particular. Conflicts will still arise, and people will still fight, but in many parts of the World, including Australian region of interest, the combatants will not be able to afford to operate many vehicle mounted weapons, particularly heavy armoured vehicles with high fuel demands. This will make heavy infantry weapons far more prevalent on the battlefields Australians are likely to fight on, and will require survivability at longer range to be a dominant design constraint. However this can not be satisfied by adding armour because of the fuel situation (unless there is a radical new technology breakthrough in next 20-40 years).
The question to ask with a light tank or tank-like AFV is will it survive an encounter with a heavy ATGW armed enemy at 3-4000 metres?
money / payment
FutureTank
Banned Member
Financial constraints are a factor in any project from weekly family shopping to national budgets.
As I see it manufacturing in Australia may incur initially higher R&D costs, but would reduce production unit and service support cost in the long term.
the break even cost of building an armoured vehicle is approx 5000 units - thats what AD and Wooki have been trying to point out (in their own way)
There is no way that we get real break even costs on a cradle to grave greenfields run.
Seriously, there are a few of us who have been in the procurement process. We're not saying the negative stuff to be difficult. There are practical reasons as to why we're commenting like we are.
I can tell you first hand that we have tried to seriously look at greenfields work on a cost effective but rational manner.
The numbers don't stack up - and the export numbers less so. Bushmaster is only taking off now due to the fact that they are now part of an International major consortium.
The potentional export market for a "Bushmaster light tank" could be huge.
This is the sort of vehicle the US would love to use in Iraq, they are using lots of humvee's this would basivally be like humvee's big brother.
As B smitty said a mine/IED/smallarms/RPG resistant vehicle that is light enough to travel with the infrantry yet has the power to destroy everything up to a main battle tank would be very handy.
Having sat in a Bushmaster IMV, the turret in those photo's is perfect, it takes up the space where the driver usually sits. The crew then sits more rearward where the "passenger" section is. No glass windows and heads down driving would be required.
The issue of recoil and centre of gravity on a "Bushmaster light tank" is not important. A Vehicle of this size can easily carry a 90mm gun, a 60mm would be ok with higher centre of gravity.
The Bushmaster tank having a fairly large 60mm cannon would also reduce the amount of towed artillery that would be taken with the lighter brigades. This would actually help Increase mobility and it would add long range target detection to these brigades depending on the sensors fitted.
A test vehicle could be made very easily by simply cutting and rewelding an original Bushmaster IMV chassis and then finding a suitable gun to stick on top.
I'd try and use as many parts as the Bushmaster as possible to save support costs when both vehicles are being deployed. Would work good with the Bushmaster IMV carrying 10 soldiers and the Bushmaster tank leading the way with its increased armour and firepower to clear the path. Like FutureTank mentioned, this would save money in the long run.
It doesn't really fit with current doctrine but these vehicles could nearly sit alongside every brigade. Would be easy
This is the sort of vehicle the US would love to use in Iraq, they are using lots of humvee's this would basivally be like humvee's big brother.
As B smitty said a mine/IED/smallarms/RPG resistant vehicle that is light enough to travel with the infrantry yet has the power to destroy everything up to a main battle tank would be very handy.
Thats why i put the turret closer towards the front. It would would put more weight on the front end preventing it from lifting off the ground with the rear also helping act as leverage.Aussie Digger said:
Having sat in a Bushmaster IMV, the turret in those photo's is perfect, it takes up the space where the driver usually sits. The crew then sits more rearward where the "passenger" section is. No glass windows and heads down driving would be required.
The issue of recoil and centre of gravity on a "Bushmaster light tank" is not important. A Vehicle of this size can easily carry a 90mm gun, a 60mm would be ok with higher centre of gravity.
60mm can kill all the targets but has the ability to kill larger targets if the need arrives. Also i would put a secondary smaller gun like a 0.5inch remote controlled gun on the HMWVV. This would allow for many more kills than a 30mm gun for lighter targets. This gun can also be fired heads down, its available off the shelf saving money.B.Smitty said:
This is more sensor dependant in my opinion. Being able to see the target first would give a huge edge. You can put long range sights on even the lightest platforms, if they were fitted they would be able to detect them. A gun greater than 60mm could then successfully destroy these targets.
The Bushmaster tank having a fairly large 60mm cannon would also reduce the amount of towed artillery that would be taken with the lighter brigades. This would actually help Increase mobility and it would add long range target detection to these brigades depending on the sensors fitted.
A test vehicle could be made very easily by simply cutting and rewelding an original Bushmaster IMV chassis and then finding a suitable gun to stick on top.
I'd try and use as many parts as the Bushmaster as possible to save support costs when both vehicles are being deployed. Would work good with the Bushmaster IMV carrying 10 soldiers and the Bushmaster tank leading the way with its increased armour and firepower to clear the path. Like FutureTank mentioned, this would save money in the long run.
It doesn't really fit with current doctrine but these vehicles could nearly sit alongside every brigade. Would be easy
It might.... if you can perfect an Active Protection System for it.
It would hardly be a light tank. It's an armored car. There's a big difference.
It's not so much that it's "light enough" to travel with infantry.
It's that it's cheap enough that one could buy them in useful numbers, and inexpensive enough to operate that you can afford to drive them all around Iraq on convoy escort duty, patrols, etc..
"Larger targets"? Like what?
60mm is too small to kill MBTs (even old T-series ones), but overkill for IFVs and other light armor. And it only has a 4-5lb HE round, so it's not going to be a great bunker buster.
A 30mm Mk44/TOW combo like one of those Delco turrets would allow you to kill anything on the battlefield and take advantage of airburst 30mm rounds, once they're available. Plus, TOW has proven to be a useful bunker buster and even has a bunker buster warhead variant.
But I still think if you're going to do it, just junk the Bushmaster chassis and design one from scratch to use as many of the Bushmaster automotive components as possible.
Or forget the whole thing and buy a proven foreign design.
Or spend the money on higher priorities.
Last edited:
Actually, I'd suggest that the reason why the Bushmaster is taking off is more because it is the right vehicle available at the right time. With increased emphasis upon COIN warfare and its present flavour in SW Asia where the IED is king, the provision of a relatively cheap, well armoured vehicle, which has the right mobility and protection characteristics is appropriate. Bushmaster isn't the only one on the market but its the one that is available at the best price and from a supplying nation which has few political strings attached to it. Now the Dutch are adopting it, it will be seen in Europe and the other NATO nations will take note and be interested themselves because of their increasing need for such a vehicle.
The IMI 60mm will kill older T-series tanks. It also has a more useful HE filling than the smaller autocannons in the 25-30mm class. It might not destroy a bunker but it will be quite effective at punching holes in the walls of houses and killing everybody on the otherside IMO.
However, this is IMO still barking up the wrong tree. Such a vehicle wouldn't be particularly useful for all the reasons cited - its too light, its too lightly armoured and its gun while useful still isn't big enough. If anything its just enough to give people an overblown sense of security and it would end up being used in situations where it shouldn't be. Just as the original Bushmaster isn't an MICV.
FutureTank
Banned Member
I don't think its practical to make a wheeled light tank.
If the light tank is defined by having an AT capability while remaining at say 20t, then the LP 60mm weapon is a possibility (though 75mm probably more desireable). Howeverthe ability to mount such weapons on IFV chassis mean that it is uneconomic to manufacture.
On the other hand maounting such a weapon on an IFV chassis makes the IFV a default light tank, and with a vastly expanded capability to increase ammo and carry additional scouts to boot.
This would be close to some of the pre WW2 ideas on light tanks.
If the light tank is defined by having an AT capability while remaining at say 20t, then the LP 60mm weapon is a possibility (though 75mm probably more desireable). Howeverthe ability to mount such weapons on IFV chassis mean that it is uneconomic to manufacture.
On the other hand maounting such a weapon on an IFV chassis makes the IFV a default light tank, and with a vastly expanded capability to increase ammo and carry additional scouts to boot.
This would be close to some of the pre WW2 ideas on light tanks.