Light Tanks

[gf0012-aust]

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 reason why the dutch took bushmaster was for a number of reasons:

• offsets
• break in australian delivery cycle and thus no wait
• trade off pending on some ex NATO gear

I attended a DFAT/Austrade meeting 2 weeks ago where we discussed the sales of Bushmaster to another euro country - again it was triggered around an issue of offsets that Thales is working on against other mil sales that they have.

you're right, its an issue of timing, but its also an issue that the parent company has expanded the market due to offsetting divisional sales against other techs that these countries want.

the expression, "robbing peter to pay paul" springs to mind. all of the future sales discussions that I was exposed to all involved shuffling the platform dice within the company - so no "clean" sales were apparent.

interestingly enough, the next sale is revolving around para military usage and not traditional IMV/APC green roles.

 

[rickshaw]

interestingly enough, the next sale is revolving around para military usage and not traditional IMV/APC green roles.

Oh, dear, I can just imagine the shit that will hit the fan when the media gets picture of the first time they are used to control a demonstration, oops, "oppress the people".

 

[gf0012-aust]

Oh, dear, I can just imagine the shit that will hit the fan when the media gets picture of the first time they are used to control a demonstration, oops, "oppress the people".

Sometimes the media is asleep at the wheel (one of the lessons learnt via Collins and the F-111 too late)

One of the unsuccessful Bushmaster designs was eventually successfully sold to Kuwait (some 28 vehicles). The manifest had them listed as "police cars"

 

[B.Smitty]

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.

I wouldn't be very confident shooting a 60mm at even a T-55, which are quoted as having 180-200mm of RHAe frontally.

The IMI 60mm APFSDS only penetrates 120mm @ 2km.

TOW 2B will definitely kill anything on the battlefield. 30mm will kill the vast majority of light armor out there. Frankly, so will the 25mm on your ASLAVs.

 

[riksavage]

Aussie developed AFV

I’m surprised Australia has not tied up with other developed Asian nations to design a semi-autonomous AFV suitable for operations in the Southern hemisphere. Going it alone is simply not an option unless you can guarantee a strong export market, the cost would be just too great, plus once the initial orders were completed what would you do with the assembly line?

Australia / Singapore / NZ could develop a common wheeled / tracked IFV. All three nations have a strong educational base, a good engineering track record and have a history of cooperation. Singapore can bring a strong military research and technical foundation through Singapore Technologies as their prime contractor. The three already train together and comprise the backbone of the five nations agreement (other two being the UK and Malaysia).

Combined the three nations would have a requirement for enough vehicles to make such a venture worthwhile.

 

[rickshaw]

I don't think its practical to make a wheeled light tank.

The French appear to disagree with their AMX-10RC. I think they've given it a good go, as have the South Africans with their Rooikat 105.

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).

I agree. Upon reflection it appears the 60mm is a bit on the light side. 75-90mm appears to be about the right size as far as a HE capability is concerned. I'd be willing to go as high as 100mm, in order to get a tube-fired ATGW included in the package.

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.

The wheel turns, as they used to say. The only problem with mounting a large turret on an MICV is that it then encounters problems with centre of gravity. Better to provide a completely new, lower hull and dispense with the scouts IMO.

 

[FutureTank]

I agree. Upon reflection it appears the 60mm is a bit on the light side. 75-90mm appears to be about the right size as far as a HE capability is concerned. I'd be willing to go as high as 100mm, in order to get a tube-fired ATGW included in the package.

The wheel turns, as they used to say. The only problem with mounting a large turret on an MICV is that it then encounters problems with centre of gravity. Better to provide a completely new, lower hull and dispense with the scouts IMO.

So you like the BMP-3?

However I have been told that change to basic production hulls of 10% ads as much to the unit cost.

 

[Wooki]

I’m surprised Australia has not tied up with other developed Asian nations to design a semi-autonomous AFV suitable for operations in the Southern hemisphere. Going it alone is simply not an option unless you can guarantee a strong export market, the cost would be just too great, plus once the initial orders were completed what would you do with the assembly line?

Australia / Singapore / NZ could develop a common wheeled / tracked IFV. All three nations have a strong educational base, a good engineering track record and have a history of cooperation. Singapore can bring a strong military research and technical foundation through Singapore Technologies as their prime contractor. The three already train together and comprise the backbone of the five nations agreement (other two being the UK and Malaysia).

Combined the three nations would have a requirement for enough vehicles to make such a venture worthwhile.

Now that suggestion has more merit than most here.

I am bowing out of this thread as I'm a bit punch drunk from the amount of posts flying around. I would humbly suggest that people "think before you post" to maintain an enjoyable atmosphere.

last contribution from me, re: the 60mm; The Oto Melara 60/70 has more than enough punch to take out an old 'T' series tank.

cheers

w

 

[rickshaw]

So you like the BMP-3?

Not particularly. Its cramped and is of a strange design philosphy. I appreciate the weapons it mounts though. I'm still trying to figure the point of the two bow MGs and how their gunners dismount or are they meant to be permamently stay mounted as part of the vehicle's crew? The 100mm gun appears a useful weapon but I have to question the point of mounting the 30mm co-axially.

However I have been told that change to basic production hulls of 10% ads as much to the unit cost.

Horses for courses. You get what you pay for. You can have a cheap but unstable vehicle or a slightly more expensive, stable vehicle. The choice is up to you.

 

[swerve]

I don't think its practical to make a wheeled light tank.

Centauro.

 

[B.Smitty]

last contribution from me, re: the 60mm; The Oto Melara 60/70 has more than enough punch to take out an old 'T' series tank.

Since Wooki bowed out, does anyone else have penetration figures for the OTO 60mm? My recollection is it's similar to the IMI 60mm which, according to this,

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bob_mackenzie/ArmourPenetration.htm

penetrates 120mms of RHAe @ 0 degrees @ 2km.

Most T-55 references I've seen say they have at least 180mm of armor up front.

Now a 60mm might get lucky, but i wouldn't want to count on it.

There's a reason why it hasn't been adopted very widely. It's just not enough gun for tank killing or bunker busting, and too much gun for light anti-armor work.

 

[FutureTank]

I wouldn't be very confident shooting a 60mm at even a T-55, which are quoted as having 180-200mm of RHAe frontally.

The IMI 60mm APFSDS only penetrates 120mm @ 2km.

TOW 2B will definitely kill anything on the battlefield. 30mm will kill the vast majority of light armor out there. Frankly, so will the 25mm on your ASLAVs.

What you do Smitty is you position yourself on a downslope, and wait for a column of T-55s to stop for a tea break beneath. When the turret crew open their hatches, you zero in on the open hatch and fire away

 

[FutureTank]

I’m surprised Australia has not tied up with other developed Asian nations to design a semi-autonomous AFV suitable for operations in the Southern hemisphere. Going it alone is simply not an option unless you can guarantee a strong export market, the cost would be just too great, plus once the initial orders were completed what would you do with the assembly line?

Singapore does have the Bionix, and now Bionix II, but I don't know much about its performance aside from manufacturer's claims.

 

[rickshaw]

What you do Smitty is you position yourself on a downslope, and wait for a column of T-55s to stop for a tea break beneath. When the turret crew open their hatches, you zero in on the open hatch and fire away

I think you mean "upslope". If you are "downslope" you are below the enemy, firing upwards.

 

[FutureTank]

I think you mean "upslope". If you are "downslope" you are below the enemy, firing upwards.

Yes, there IS an need for the embarassed smiley :loony

But you got the idea

 

[rjmaz1]

Current main battle tanks have very little automation. Look at aircraft like the JSF and F-22 and you can see how much can be done by a single person. Two people with high levels of automation can easily perform the roles of 4 people using 1980's technology.

If you halve the crew, you halve internal cabin volume required.
If you halve the internal cabin volume you reduce the weight to one third.
If the weight is one third you need an engine with a third of the power
If the engine is a third of the power you need a third of the internal fuel etc

So if you started with an M1 tank at 70 tonne. Automation and crew reduction alone would provide the same firepower, armoured protection as as 70 tonne tank in a tank that only weighs 30 tonne.

Dont forget the "bushmaster light tank" would be considerably smaller than the IMV version so if it had the same weight limit it would have alot of additional armour.

I still believe a 60mm gun would be ideal even if this mini tank will never face a main battle tank.

Remember Australia would never send these bushmaster light tanks in alone if the enemy had main battle tanks. Australia would send in the M1A1's.

Range advantage alone is a good reason to put a larger 60mm cannon instead of a 25/30mm gun. A 25mm gun at long range may not give a kill, a 60mm gun at the same range would destroy the target.

Cost per round of 60mm ammunition is far less than any small anti tank missile. You could fire a dozen 60mm rounds and still work out cheaper than a guided anti tank missile. Im sure a dozen 60mm rounds would do a fair bit of damage to a bunker or main battle tank.

A 25mm gun may require a dozen rounds to destroy an APC, yet a single 60mm will do the same job. So even though the 60mm would carry less rounds it would not need as many rounds per target.

A small secondary gun would be used for the lighter stuff.

Australia could manufacturer these 60mm rounds in Australia, a missile is much harder for us to make.

Im just floating around some idea's.

Im really keen to see Australia manufacturer alot of its weapon systems locally. I do believe we should leave the high end, expensive systems to the US as the development cost is too great and we would not order enough. Australia aleady has the industry setup to make armoured cars and ammunition.

It may cost 50% more to produce these items locally, but remember all the workers pay tax and spend their money in Australia so the government would easily get back the difference.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Current main battle tanks have very little automation. Look at aircraft like the JSF and F-22 and you can see how much can be done by a single person. Two people with high levels of automation can easily perform the roles of 4 people using 1980's technology.

If you halve the crew, you halve internal cabin volume required.
If you halve the internal cabin volume you reduce the weight to one third.
If the weight is one third you need an engine with a third of the power
If the engine is a third of the power you need a third of the internal fuel etc

So if you started with an M1 tank at 70 tonne. Automation and crew reduction alone would provide the same firepower, armoured protection as as 70 tonne tank in a tank that only weighs 30 tonne.

Dont forget the "bushmaster light tank" would be considerably smaller than the IMV version so if it had the same weight limit it would have alot of additional armour.

I still believe a 60mm gun would be ideal even if this mini tank will never face a main battle tank.

I'm guessing you've never seen the inside of a main battle tank then RJM?

There is NO room to "reduce internal volume" in a tank. Auto-loaders which is what I presume you are talking about, are bulky, mechanically complex and offer little benefit over a digger with a strong right arm. You forget that ANY tracked vehicle requires substantial servicing even when nothing is "wrong". Fitting a bulky auto-loader is going to decrease your available internal volume WITHOUT reducing the size of the vehicle and all it achieves is one less soldier on board the vehicle. The vehicle still requires a gunner, driver and a commander.

Automation does nothing to improve the firepower. How can the automation improve the lethality of the weapon system?

Obviously you've never "bashed track" but it's an activity better done with 4 people than 2. You talk often of the benefits of the "second pair of eyes" in the Rhino. How much more useful do you think it would be 2 have a "second" "second set of eyes"?

Tanks weigh what they do because of the amount of armour they need to achieve specified protection levels. Not because Army particularly WANT a heavy vehicle, but no better way of protecting a vehicle has yet been discovered than passive armour.

Other armour types offer various advantages and disadvantages, but unlike passive armour they are all designed to add "value" to the base armour. A 63 ton M1A1 AIM can as easily be fitted with ERA, Trophy or whatever your fancy as a light armoured vehicle, except they don't really need it...

As to the 60mm gun idea. What is it ideal for? Engaging enemy armour? Engaging bunker systems, engaging fortified buildings?

If it is so ideal, why the paucity of such weapon systems in service?

 

[FutureTank]

The Soviet idea behind autoloaders is based on wartime expereince. The intention is to enable crew with very high rate of fire during initial engagement. It was found that loader fatigue was a significant cause of tank loss, and this is why the autoloaders are there, not to save space. They replace what is a fairly mechanical job. The loader rarely acts as a "second pair of eyes" due to his station position in most tanks that have one.

60mm weapons are usefull in certain situations. It will put a hole through most IFVs/APCs, and will blow windows out of a second story window if there is an MG nest there.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The Soviet idea behind autoloaders is based on wartime expereince. The intention is to enable crew with very high rate of fire during initial engagement. It was found that loader fatigue was a significant cause of tank loss, and this is why the autoloaders are there, not to save space. They replace what is a fairly mechanical job. The loader rarely acts as a "second pair of eyes" due to his station position in most tanks that have one.

60mm weapons are usefull in certain situations. It will put a hole through most IFVs/APCs, and will blow windows out of a second story window if there is an MG nest there.

They are also unnecessarily expensive and cannot fill in multiple roles within the tank, unlike a soldier. Soviet preference notwithstanding, it is the Western experience generally that the additional soldier is more useful in most ways and is more reliable. Hence the lack of a rush to fit them...

A 30mm weapon is useful in almost as many situations and you get the benefit of far greater ammunition storage and a far greater rate of fire.

A rifle will blow windows out too. A 60mm weapon is a waste IMHO. They offer little enhancement over modern rapid fire 25-40mm cannons. They cannot (to the best of my knowledge) be mounted on an RWS and this seems to be the way most modern AFV's are going, in a effort to maximise internal space and provide the greatest amount of protection for the crew.

What is the point of a slightly bigger hole in an armoured vehicle? IF a 30mm weapon is sufficient, why would a 60mm weapon be needed? The additional cost of the weapon and ammunition, the reduced rate of fire and reduced ammunition stowage are all good reasons not to bother with it. The fact that very few Countries operate FSV's with anything less than a 90-105mm weapon these days, tends to reinforce my opinion on this...

 

[FutureTank]

They are also unnecessarily expensive and cannot fill in multiple roles within the tank, unlike a soldier. Soviet preference notwithstanding, it is the Western experience generally that the additional soldier is more useful in most ways and is more reliable. Hence the lack of a rush to fit them...

What is the point of a slightly bigger hole in an armoured vehicle? IF a 30mm weapon is sufficient, why would a 60mm weapon be needed? The additional cost of the weapon and ammunition, the reduced rate of fire and reduced ammunition stowage are all good reasons not to bother with it. The fact that very few Countries operate FSV's with anything less than a 90-105mm weapon these days, tends to reinforce my opinion on this...

I gave an explanation which was given to me by an ex-Soviet tank officer, and one that used to train crews. The only other reason to have a loader is to allow the commander to remain within the tank if the rest of the crew is changing a track. However there is little a commander can do on his own, and the way tracks are made apparently allows two people to change a break. I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe that, but I have never changed track on a T-72 or T-80 as he had, so had to take his word for it.

Israelis wanted to retain a 60mm weapon in the platoons. They used to use 60mm mortars. Its an 'odd job' weapon, which was also being marketed at the lower end of the market, mostly as an M113 conversion. Apparently what it is better at then the HRF cannos, is doing damage to concrete, which is the preferred building material in the West Bank and Gaza.