[Pro Patria] Is the main battle tank (MBT) obsolete?

[Oleander Ardens]

Makes it still sense to invest for an MBT?

Long have they been the iron fist of the heavy brigades of the industrialized nations. New strategies, tasks and new technologies seem to endanger the steelbeast's future.

A rough overview of the possible pro and con's, some may seemingly collide

- high price
- costly to mantain
- strains the logistic immensly -> fuel hog
- strains the infrastructure
- short range
- not suited for urban combat
- not transportable by air
- reduced situational awerness
- psyc. effect


+ nothing tanks like a tank
+ great tactical mobility
+ almost instant hitting power
+ great survilability
+ intimidating for the enemy
+ moralbooster for your own troops


Cheers
OA

[Marshal Murat]

Unless your planning to go into urban, forested, or heavily mountainous area, the tank is your weapon. Unfortunately, these spots are few in number, and if you have tanks, your foe will most likely fall back into the three aforementioned positions.

[MilesGregarius]

Within the context of 2nd or 3rd Generation warfare (i.e., state vs. state), the tank is still a vital component. The Abrams performed admirably in the actual invasion of Iraq. Advances in anti-tank weaponry don't negate its battlefield value, though it does force a tactical rethink.

In 4th Generation warfare (asymmetric warfare against non-state actors), the MBT is of minimal value. In fact, excepting the individual rifleman's personal weapons, all weapon systems are of lesser import in this type of warfare than the political/economic/psychological aspects of the conflict.

Therefore, for any nation wishing to engage in/deter a war with a rival state still needs MBTs as a part of its arsenal. For those expecting to engage in anti-guerilla and/or peacekeeping operations, the MBT is largely redundant.

[Stig]

Say this:
I'm an Al-Qaida member and I want to fight the Americans.
They have tanks, all I have is an RPG.
If they come driving at me over a flat plain I'm done for it.
The only way to fight them is in Urban combat where they have difficulties.
So I do that.


Nowadays most wars fought are between Guerillas and a big army. The only way for these Guerillas to win is to fight on equal terms, which means getting rid of the tanks.


If I were the Western countries I would invest in gunships, as I believe they are the new tanks of the battlefield.
If you however get to fight another large army tanks might be usefull, however he who has tanks of lower value will quickly notice this and will try to avoid the tanks.

So I'd say: Keep a couple of tank regiments, but invest in gunships.

[Pannonian]

Say this:
I'm an Al-Qaida member and I want to fight the Americans.
They have tanks, all I have is an RPG.
If they come driving at me over a flat plain I'm done for it.
The only way to fight them is in Urban combat where they have difficulties.
So I do that.

Nowadays most wars fought are between Guerillas and a big army. The only way for these Guerillas to win is to fight on equal terms, which means getting rid of the tanks.

If I were the Western countries I would invest in gunships, as I believe they are the new tanks of the battlefield.
If you however get to fight another large army tanks might be usefull, however he who has tanks of lower value will quickly notice this and will try to avoid the tanks.

So I'd say: Keep a couple of tank regiments, but invest in gunships.
Don't forget the most flexible weapon of them all, infantry. Tanks and gunships are good in certain situations, but good infantry are useful in all situations. So train good infantrymen, invest in ways of moving them around, supplying them, and keeping them fighting at a high level, invest in creating the right political environment to maximise their effectiveness, and take care of them when they retire. Unlike machines, they are infintely adaptable, and even if neglected they'll find a way of looking after themselves.

Their greatest drawback is they don't contribute to the military-industrial complex, which means little profit and hence little interest for influential corporations.

[Watchman]

On the other hand infantry aren't all that fast, die kinda easily all things considered, are severely limited in their ability to carry heavier weaponry...

Anyway, isn't one current problem the fact them helos are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the unpleasantly ubiquitous man-portable SAMs and similar "cheap and cheerful" countermeasures ? I was under the impression there was some serious effort invested in figuring this issue out one way or other in the relevant circles.

Tanks at least can load up on all kinds of countermeasure systems and appliqué armour things.

[Vladimir]

There was also a new system unveiled by the army that will destroy an incoming RPG. I believe that it's similar to the active denial system and causes the warhead to detonate while in flight. Soon that technology will be placed on helicopters and advances in computers will allow it to identify and engage targets faster.

Still, no matter how powerful tanks become, nothing is better than a highly trained infantry with advanced weapons. :rifle:

[Pannonian]

On the other hand infantry aren't all that fast, die kinda easily all things considered, are severely limited in their ability to carry heavier weaponry...

Anyway, isn't one current problem the fact them helos are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the unpleasantly ubiquitous man-portable SAMs and similar "cheap and cheerful" countermeasures ? I was under the impression there was some serious effort invested in figuring this issue out one way or other in the relevant circles.

Tanks at least can load up on all kinds of countermeasure systems and appliqué armour things.
About mobility and heavy equipment: that's why transport is such an important part of the infantry package. The great thing about infantry is that they can be fixed up with an infinite variety of suitable carriers - few problems with incompatibility, as anything that can carry a man or a squad with their equipment will do. Have self-propelled artillery to back them up from a distance if necessary, but infantry and their transports can carry equipment to see them through a great variety of situations.

As for vulnerability against all weapons, infantry have a great protection system: numbers.

[Husar]

As for vulnerability against all weapons, infantry have a great protection system: numbers.
Yes, but even that "protection" can be worn down and was the reason a guy called Hitler had to field old men and young boys in the end who couldn't even receive proper training.
So far about the materialistic standpoint, I'll leave the moral one to someone else.:sweatdrop:

[Spino]

There was also a new system unveiled by the army that will destroy an incoming RPG. I believe that it's similar to the active denial system and causes the warhead to detonate while in flight. Soon that technology will be placed on helicopters and advances in computers will allow it to identify and engage targets faster.

Still, no matter how powerful tanks become, nothing is better than a highly trained infantry with advanced weapons. :rifle:

Actually this is not unique to the US Army. South Korea's brand new K-2 tank also sports an active anti-missile system. This kind of tech is the latest and greatest trend to affect modern tank designs. However as with any system countermeasures can be developed to overcome them.

Two serious issues facing tank designers are the factors of weight & size. Design a tank too heavy or too large and you compromise the vehicles mobility, range, transportability and survivabilty (larger tank = easier target). State of the art armor and specialized defensive systems (reactive armor, anti-missile point defense, etc.) all take up precious weight and space that would otherwise be allotted to extra fuel or ammo. Too much of anything can adversely affect a tank's effectiveness unless compromises are introduced into the design. 70 tons seems to be the absolute limit for modern MBTs if they are to take full advantage of most roads and bridges.

Modern infantry anti-tank weapons have never been deadlier. Portable systems like Javelin with its 'fire and forget' design can make quick work of most MBTs and offer maximum survivability for the crews that use them.

Check out this hypersonic AT missile now being fielded by the US Army. It's called LOSAT and has no warhead because it relies entirely on kinetic energy to dispatch the target. 5,000 feet/sec... ouch!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JCmSs6hXWoU ~:shock:

[Stig]

Don't forget the most flexible weapon of them all, infantry. Tanks and gunships are good in certain situations, but good infantry are useful in all situations. So train good infantrymen, invest in ways of moving them around, supplying them, and keeping them fighting at a high level, invest in creating the right political environment to maximise their effectiveness, and take care of them when they retire. Unlike machines, they are infintely adaptable, and even if neglected they'll find a way of looking after themselves.

Their greatest drawback is they don't contribute to the military-industrial complex, which means little profit and hence little interest for influential corporations.

Well I see a great future in gunships like the Hind. Being capable of transporting a platoon of soldiers, well armoured and well weaponed. Drop the soldiers, heli over them and support them.

[Oleander Ardens]

Well I see a great future in gunships like the Hind. Being capable of transporting a platoon of soldiers, well armoured and well weaponed. Drop the soldiers, heli over them and support them.

The Canadian forces in Afghanistan love the heli-CAS (combat air support), however there is a big problem once the enemy gets his hands even on older AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) or SAM (surface to air missiles).

Just this week a sovietbuild gunship was downed by heavy machineguns and RPGs over Mogadishu. Guess it makes some think back some ten years or so...


There was also a new system unveiled by the army that will destroy an incoming RPG. I believe that it's similar to the active denial system and causes the warhead to detonate while in flight. Soon that technology will be placed on helicopters and advances in computers will allow it to identify and engage targets faster.

Yes, it's called ADS (active defense system) with hard-kill ability. Israeli's Trophy and Iron Fist are togheter with a system from Diehl the main competitors on that market. A ray of shrapnels or an exploding interceptor should defeat or deflect incoming missiles and perhaps in the future kinetic threads. There are already a wide area of softkilling actitve and passive defense suites on some modern AFV, making life far more difficult for ATGM (antitank guided missiles). Good and complete ADS may well tip the balance in favor of the AFV, at least against the older, widespread ATGM and RPG's

BTW the soviets pioneered ADS (and reactive armor) because their tanks had to face NATO's hellfires, Milans, TOWs and the like. IIRC one soviet system was called Arena.


Cheers
OA

[Oleander Ardens]

Two serious issues facing tank designers are the factors of weight & size. Design a tank too heavy or too large and you compromise the vehicles mobility, range, transportability and survivabilty (larger tank = easier target). State of the art armor and specialized defensive systems (reactive armor, anti-missile point defense, etc.) all take up precious weight and space that would otherwise be allotted to extra fuel or ammo. Too much of anything can adversely affect a tank's effectiveness unless compromises are introduced into the design. 70 tons seems to be the absolute limit for modern MBTs if they are to take full advantage of most roads and bridges.

Given that advances in the hardkill ADS may greatly lessens the thread of ATGM might a light tank as the CV90120 or a heavier IFV with the same gun be able to substitute the MBT? The CV is far lighter than a MBT, less protected and smaller but it wields a fine full-pressured 120mm gun. The Puma is better protected against IED's and mines than a Leo II and not too much worse on it's sides. A "tank" version might also be able, thanks to it's good space and design to carry some infantry like the Merkavas. A plus IMHO.

OA

[Watchman]

I seem to recall reading the US were doing serious research into resurrecting the long-dead "light tank" concept. Not as a replacement for MBTs of course - it never hurts to have those monsters around for the rainy day you just need lots of 'Eavy Metal to pulverize stuff with - but as a more cost-effective, agile, flexible and transportable alternative for the sort of low-intensity conflict and counterinsurgency work they mostly do these days. Full-blown MBTs tend to be kinda expensive overkill for much of that stuff, as well as somewhat sub-optimal - to use a navy parallel, a handful of cruisers where you really need swarms of corvettes.

[Stig]

The Canadian forces in Afghanistan love the heli-CAS (combat air support), however there is a big problem once the enemy gets his hands even on older AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) or SAM (surface to air missiles).

Just this week a sovietbuild gunship was downed by heavy machineguns and RPGs over Mogadishu. Guess it makes some think back some ten years or so...
As I heard it the Hind was very hard to take down. Not till Western Countries introduced Anti-Air rockets to the Mujahideen where they able to take down Hinds.
And how often does the enemy have those weapons close by. It's not like every platoon as it's own Stinger rocket.

[RabidGibbon]

: About Light Tanks

Surely the current generation of Infantry Fighting Vehicles like the Bradley and the Warrior fufill the role that light tanks were meant to - there multi purpose vehicles, and I think the Bradley carries TOW missles capable of destroying any non american MBT, although I dont know about the Warrior. The also carry their own infantry support. Their Light Cannons are devestating against infantry.

I remeber once reading an articale that said the state that has the most experience of warfare since WW2 designed a tank that is slow, heavily armoured and carries its own infantry squad. The State is Israel and the Tank is the Merkava, Although a quick google search whilst typing this post I cant find a link supporting the infantry squad carrying hypothesis - I thought they carried 6 squaddies but I'm probably dead wrong.

Antway the point of the article was that American British German and French designs all took a different direction to the Isreali design. But of course NATO tanks needed to do different things to what Isreali tanks need to do.

A NATO MBT is designed to meet a Soviet MBT somewhere in Germany. An Isreali MBT has to be able to fight off hostile enemies on an open battlefield, whilst still being able to carry out anti partisan warfare.

Has NATO adapted the needs of its next generation MBT's to face the new threat of... umm.. the new threat?

I suppose my final thesis is that a heavily armoured vehicle with a big gun will never go out of fashion, but the particular ratio of gun to armour to speed will alway vary.

[MilesGregarius]

I remeber once reading an articale that said the state that has the most experience of warfare since WW2 designed a tank that is slow, heavily armoured and carries its own infantry squad. The State is Israel and the Tank is the Merkava, Although a quick google search whilst typing this post I cant find a link supporting the infantry squad carrying hypothesis - I thought they carried 6 squaddies but I'm probably dead wrong.

If I remember correctly, early Merkavas give the option to carry either four(?) or six(?) infantrymen in the rear hull ammo storage area by reducing the number of main gun rounds carried. I'm not sure if this was retained on later models.


...But of course NATO tanks needed to do different things to what Isreali tanks need to do...An Isreali MBT has to be able to fight off hostile enemies on an open battlefield, whilst still being able to carry out anti partisan warfare.

Israel also does its 4G war fighting (counter-insurgency, anti-partisan, low-intensity, et cetera) close to home, so it can afford a tank design that puts a premium on armor over transportability.

Unless an insurgent threat suddenly arises in Liverpool or Los Angeles, the size and weight of an Abrams or a Challenger limits their utility in these kinds of conflicts. Even the Bradley at 30 tons (compared to 16-19 tons for a Stryker) is too bulky for easy transport.

[Marshal Murat]

What about a 'tortoise' tank.

One something like DaVinci's tank.
With 2 treads, engine in the center. Box/shell of armor. Ports for light weapons, and heavier, remote operated guns.
Urban combat to the extreme.

[Sirex1]

Yes they are still needed. Becouse they are part of a system. And thier role is to move in after a breach has been made, and rampage behind enemy lines, and encircle enemy formations. You need to remeber that your own tanks are also supported, and if used correctly attack in a great number.

[Watchman]

Israel also does its 4G war fighting (counter-insurgency, anti-partisan, low-intensity, et cetera) close to home, so it can afford a tank design that puts a premium on armor over transportability.AFAIK Israeli design stresses survivability - particularly that of the crew; they can replace the hardware easier than trained personnel - and mobility, the cannon being a bit secondary consideration (Merkavas only went 120mm rather late). Makes sense when you think about their projected campaign conditions - should they ever need to go into an open state-level war again, they'll still need to do good with an ultimately fairly small number of tanks so it's obviously premium those can stay alive, and they'll need to do it in some rather tricky terrain and probably on multiple fronts so some mobility is needed. The gun is a bit secondary as all their neighbours have is now badly vintage Soviet leftovers which could probably still be killed with the 105mm main guns of the old days.

The Merkava's engine actually has less horsepower than the Abrams', but it has a better power transmission so it ends up with about the same ground speed and IIRC is a bit superior over rough terrain.


: About Light Tanks

Surely the current generation of Infantry Fighting Vehicles like the Bradley and the Warrior fufill the role that light tanks were meant to - there multi purpose vehicles, and I think the Bradley carries TOW missles capable of destroying any non american MBT, although I dont know about the Warrior. The also carry their own infantry support. Their Light Cannons are devestating against infantry.I'm not all that sure about that. Actual APCs are AFAIK kinda limited in the combination of defense and firepower they can carry by the simple need to reserve space for the soldiers, and heavier-armed IFVs like the Soviet BMP-3 apparently have some issues in practice although I've not quite understood what.

And let's face it, the armament of modern APCs is kinda limited. Most have about one autocannon in the 20-30mm range plus a coaxial MG, and provisions for carrying missiles. The manufacturer upgrade the Finnish BMP-2s are to undergo involves the addition of an auto-grenade launcher for weight-and cost-effective "proactive" anti-missile defense (as in, soldiers busy trying to not get blown up by the grenades will have a hard time getting their ATGMs and rockets off), but in general that's about the level they're limited to. Many need additional armour to even be reliably RPG-7 proof.

The prototype light tanks being tossed around I've read of had guns in the 75mm range (at the least) and obviously a fair bit more armour than you encounter in most APCs - and given that the Russians can fit a 100mm cannon, 30mm autocannon, MG and missiles in the BMP-3, more is certainly possible.


What about a 'tortoise' tank.

One something like DaVinci's tank.
With 2 treads, engine in the center. Box/shell of armor. Ports for light weapons, and heavier, remote operated guns.
Urban combat to the extreme.The Israelis actually have something along these lines for counterinsurgency work. IIRC they took some of those "superheavy APCs" they'd converted from old Centurion MBTs and added enough armoured superstructure to house four MGs for 360 degree coverage plus ballistic shields for the gunners - the end result works quite well for its intented role (ie. engaging living force in close terrain), but is so butt ugly it's commonly - and probably even officially - called with a Hebrew word for "monster"...

[Husar]

Surely the current generation of Infantry Fighting Vehicles like the Bradley and the Warrior fufill the role that light tanks were meant to - there multi purpose vehicles, and I think the Bradley carries TOW missles capable of destroying any non american MBT, although I dont know about the Warrior.
Considering that the british Challenger 2 has about the same armour as the Abrams, I'd conclude that a TOW can also destroy an american MBT. ~;)

I often wonder how effective russian ATGMs are, everybody knowsthe TOW, hellfire etc. but what exactly do russian airplanes fire at tanks? NATO planes would currently use mavericks I guess and I know that the BMPs and T-80s can fire missiles from their cannons(what I also find quite interesting), but what exactly do the planes use and how does all that stuff work? And why do I know so much about NATO equipment but nothing about the fancy russian stuff? And why do people always assume that russian stuff is inferior?
Remember that the R73 Archer was superior to all western IR missiles when Germany was united and tested them.

Ok, I want to know about russian stuff now.:whip:

[Watchman]

If nothing else the NATO designations for Soviet gear tend to be pretty interesting. Say what you will, but I think "Snow Drift" is a pretty cool codename for a radar system.

[Oleander Ardens]

As I heard it the Hind was very hard to take down. Not till Western Countries introduced Anti-Air rockets to the Mujahideen where they able to take down Hinds.

In fact the Mujahideen downed a lot of them with RPGs and heavy (14.3 mm) machineguns. They were mostly ambushed from high ground close to the airfields or important targets by hails of RPGs. On flat ground flak would be very dangerous to them. This way many were shot down even if they were quite robust.

Thanks to squad tactics, heavy use of overwatch and massive firepower (even thermobaric bombs) the Soviets were able to reduce their casualities, but than the Singer arrived... Fire and forget...



And let's face it, the armament of modern APCs is kinda limited. Most have about one autocannon in the 20-30mm range plus a coaxial MG, and provisions for carrying missiles. The manufacturer upgrade the Finnish BMP-2s are to undergo involves the addition of an auto-grenade launcher for weight-and cost-effective "proactive" anti-missile defense (as in, soldiers busy trying to not get blown up by the grenades will have a hard time getting their ATGMs and rockets off), but in general that's about the level they're limited to. Many need additional armour to even be reliably RPG-7 proof.

The IFV is IMHO a broader concept of the APC. If you look at the various modern IFVs you realize that they are APCs able to withstand more punishment and to deal out more.
The IFV's fire support proved often to be crucial for the allied forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's hard for the insurgents to top a 25 or a 30mm cannon. And a AFV with an ADS should have far more standing power against ATGMs and RPGs

I wonder if it might not be possible to increase the number of the remote-controlled machineguns and letting the riding infantry take control over them. In a thunder run through heavy oppositon, in or out it should help to
plaster the ambusher so that he keeps his head down.
Of course AGL would carry more punch, but one per vehicle is enough. The machineguns are cheaper and lighter and thanks to it's plenty ammo excellent for suppressing any oppostion.

OA

[Somebody Else]

Considering that the british Challenger 2 has about the same armour as the Abrams...

I haven't heard of any Challys being taken out by RPGs...

[Spino]

I haven't heard of any Challys being taken out by RPGs...

True but the Challenger hasn't been exposed to the same volume of fire as the M1-A1 Abrams has over the past 3-4 years (or for that matter the last 16).

[Watchman]

The IFV is IMHO a broader concept of the APC. If you look at the various modern IFVs you realize that they are APCs able to withstand more punishment and to deal out more.Still quite thinly armoured. Armour is heavy after all, and personnel carriers need to try to keep the weight down to maintain a decent turn of speed - and IFVs have the additional trouble of their (comparatively) heavy weapons loadout, a decent-sized turret and all the accompanying mechanics to house those, and ammo, nevermind still having to reserve space for the infantrymen...

Sounds like a bit of a jack-of-all-trades syndrome, no ? If I understoof correctly that's the whole point why the idea of a light tank was resurrected - as a pure AFV the design of such could concentrate on balancing speed, protection, offense and low profile (most APCs and IFVs are kinda tall and bulky for their weight, aren't they ?) without having to worry about all the provisions for transported foot soldiers. Presumably such light tanks could serve as comparatively fast and easily "portable" rapid response units, as well as providing mechanized infantry formations with greater weight of guns and armour than the APCs and IFVs by their lonesome can field without all the hassle involved in bringing up the monster MBTs.

[spmetla]

While tanks in close terrain have their problems and can be heard a mile away they are excellent combat multipliers. They're big, they're invunerable to all but the biggest IEDs or the newest Anti-armor weapons and they are a big boost to morale.

The US has tried to phase out these things several times, we didn't bring them into Vietnam initially until we realized that we still need them, even in jungles.
For the retaking of Fallujah in 2004 there were tanks a plenty and they were put to good use.

Afghanistan is really the only place we can't use them and for two big reasons. With no port of true allied nation with a port nearby airlifting them in is a tremendous and not really worth it effort, and the mountain tops that the Taliban operate in and fire mortars from are too high for the max elevation of the Abrams.

I think we'll always have MBTs around, the next step I envision is sort of in line with Schoomaker's and Shinseki's idea with airportable armor, but not as a replacement but as a supplement. Maybe take that Cadillac Stingray light tank, put a reactive armor kit and those new active armor devices on and use them that way.

Imagine if we had to invade Iraq with no tanks, while I don't doubt that we'd still have won, I highly doubt that the conventional war would only have last three weeks. Having to call in a jet or artillery everytime you run into T72s just won't do, especially if the next war is against a country that decides to actually field some modern tanks and not Soviet exports (which were always inferior to soviet domestic variants).

EDIT: Also the fact that the coalitions tanks were only able to spend short periods of time in the open areas in which tanks are dominant just hammer home how much the Iraqis neglected their armor. If the US had faced well trained tankers we would have taken higher losses. Instead we fought the army that fought the Iranians utilizing essentially WWII tank tactics and at WWII ranges (`500m).

[Oleander Ardens]

Shameful copy+past from Wiki


Puma IFV

General characteristics
Crew 3 + 6
Length 7.4 m
Width 3.7 m (uparmored)
Height 3.1 m
Weight 31.5 t, 43t maximum weight with add-on armor

Armour and armament
Armour modular
Main armament 30 mm MK30-2/ABM autocannon; 200 rounds/min rapid shot, 700 rounds/min fully automatic
Secondary armament 5.56 mm HK MG4 machine gun; 76mm grenade launcher; Smoke-grenade launchers
Mobility
Power plant MTU V10 892 diesel
1073 hp (800 kW)
Suspension hydropneumatic
Road speed 70 km/h
Power/weight 33.52 hp/tonne
Range 600 km

Note the range and the unusual powerful engine - an umatched kw/t and it's high crosscountry mobity allow for an supreme tactical mobility.


Its large weight reserves and the compact cabin make it very attractive for modification. Up to 15t weight and 10m³ of space are more or less freely at one´s disposal when the current interior and turret are removed, and that without any significant modification of the rest of the vehicle. Most vital integrals are situated in the front, floor and side walls which may remain unchanged during such a cabin-oriented modification. Ultimately, the Bundeswehr may need to go ahead and invest into different modifications as soon as viable and possible to increase the Puma portfolio. Non developmental technologies should be far more attractive to smaller nations.

Given that IED are the greatest threads of coalition troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and that the Puma seems to provide a better protection than a M1A2 or a Leo IIA6 MBT it is perfectly suited for patrolling tasks in the most dangerous zones of the theater. Put a Rueag 120mm gun on it and with small changes - "hunter-killer" is already included - you get nice firesupport. It isn't a MBT but a AFV with high survilabilty, especially if AWiSS and the other defensive systems get installed as planned. I wouldn't like to be an the business end of it.


Sounds like a bit of a jack-of-all-trades syndrome, no ? If I understoof correctly that's the whole point why the idea of a light tank was resurrected - as a pure AFV the design of such could concentrate on balancing speed, protection, offense and low profile (most APCs and IFVs are kinda tall and bulky for their weight, aren't they ?) without having to worry about all the provisions for transported foot soldiers. Presumably such light tanks could serve as comparatively fast and easily "portable" rapid response units, as well as providing mechanized infantry formations with greater weight of guns and armour than the APCs and IFVs by their lonesome can field without all the hassle involved in bringing up the monster MBTs.

Hm watchman. Smaller tanks are usually very restricted in range and ammuniton, and have, if better armored than a Puma bad kw/t. They have a lower profile but according to german and american tankgunners this does little to avoid detection and destruction. So I would rather go with some Puma-T(ank) and some Wiesel 2 for portability. For a fight on your home turf unleash the Leos and Abrams :whip:


The bottom line is that if the enemy has MBTs, and you don't, you are at a considerable disadvantage. It's better to have. Alot better.

+1 GC


Afghanistan is really the only place we can't use them and for two big reasons. With no port of true allied nation with a port nearby airlifting them in is a tremendous and not really worth it effort, and the mountain tops that the Taliban operate in and fire mortars from are too high for the max elevation of the Abrams.

The Canadians fight there with a modernized and uparmored Leopard 1, while the Germans use the tankette Wiesel for their mountain troops. The Wiesel declass everything on the ground which can go where they can go. So yes no heavy MBTs, but tanks are there, spmetla

[Watchman]

Hm watchman. Smaller tanks are usually very restricted in range and ammuniton, and have, if better armored than a Puma bad kw/t. They have a lower profile but according to german and american tankgunners this does little to avoid detection and destruction. So I would rather go with some Puma-T(ank) and some Wiesel 2 for portability. For a fight on your home turf unleash the Leos and Abrams :whip: I don't know the exact specs of the Puma with all the optional stuff bolted on, but really, at 43 tons and with a 120mm gun... it's pretty much a light tank already innit ? Given that the MBTs are around sixty tons...

The difference is really just that it arrives at the "light tank" concept through being a modified IFV rather than a dedicated design, no ?

[spmetla]

Afghanistan is really the only place we can't use them and for two big reasons. With no port of true allied nation with a port nearby airlifting them in is a tremendous and not really worth it effort, and the mountain tops that the Taliban operate in and fire mortars from are too high for the max elevation of the Abrams.


The Canadians fight there with a modernized and uparmored Leopard 1, while the Germans use the tankette Wiesel for their mountain troops. The Wiesel declass everything on the ground which can go where they can go. So yes no heavy MBTs, but tanks are there, spmetla


I was aware of the Canadian Leos but was referring to the US Abrams, should have specified. The US Army right now has no intention to send Abrams to Afghanistan, perhaps we when leave Iraq for the most part they won't mind paying for an armor brigade in Afghanistan but can't see that happening soon. They're about 25 tons heavier, eat a lot more fuel and require ammo that no other gun in Afghanistan uses. I think the big ol' C5 Galaxy can move 2 Abrams which is pretty impressive but seeing as the US likes to move whole regiments and brigades at a minimum for deployments it'd require a fair number of C5s to do that.

Do you know though, whether the Canadians will switch the Leos with every unit that goes in and out of country? I don't know what type of front line repair facilities can create for their MBTs but I can see there'll be a lot of effort in keeping those things in top shape. At least they don't have a gas turbine engine like the Abrams, not very friendly with all that dust.

Are artillery 105 HE rounds able to be used by tank guns?


In Iraq the Bradely's make good targets compared to Abrams. It takes a lot of boom to take out a Abrams with an IED and those rarely take out the Abrams completely (only know of one which completely knocked the turret off) so I've seen a lot more M2s get blown up. Takes less boom to do it and there's more "infidels" to kill in the rear compartment.

[Oleander Ardens]

Do you know though, whether the Canadians will switch the Leos with every unit that goes in and out of country?

As far as I know they will stay in there, it seems to be the only sensible thing given the already huge strain on the airlifting capacity. And yes, a lot of effort goes into dusting of the Leos. HE is the natural choice there although I don't know if it is interchangable with all the fancy artillery rounds..


It takes a lot of boom to take out a Abrams with an IED and those rarely take out the Abrams completely

That is perhaps the selling point of the Puma. This vehicle is built up from the scratch to take punishment from IED and mines. It would take a skilled person with enough ressources a good deal of planning to take one out, while an AMV or Stryker requires far less of all.


But actual armor will never be done away with as long as rounds like the SABOT--which is plain old kinetic force moving at absolutely amazing speeds--are the main anti-tank round used by tanks.

There are some which claim that such active defense systems will able to deflect a SABOT, at least in the near future. We will see. In any case there are still enough threads attacking a MBT from all sides, which only solid armor can counter. Especially when shit hits the fan and our precious ADS wants to take a kit-kat moment. :sweatdrop:



The difference is really just that it arrives at the "light tank" concept through being a modified IFV rather than a dedicated design, no ?

Yes, watchman I think you can put it like that. It would be a bigger light tank built to survive APS 30mm, IED and RPGs and with the ADS maybe ATGM and maybe maybe one day SABOT. Of course clever people will find clever ways to deceive the ADS, but it should be nevertheless a great help against all the other, older stuff.

BTW: Given that
A tank is a tank.What do you guys consider to be the best armament of an NATO MBT in a complex, possibly urban battlefield?

My thoughts

1. Main Gun: I guess that all agree that a smoothbore 120mm gun is the best choice – best if it is the newest from Rheinmetall but any will do good

2. Support: A remote controlled coaxial machinegun is pretty much standard, I prefer the ROF and huge ammo store of a 7.62mm over the penetration power of a .50 BMG

3. Indirect, high-arc fire: An automatic 60mm mortar or a 40mm automatic grenade launcher would both be good choices, with a slight preference for the 60mm, given that it has enough rounds to do its job and is easy enough to reload. If not, I take the 40mm AGL


OA

[Somebody Else]

Personally, I want to go into light tanks, they're much more fun, but if I were to be engaged in combat in an urban area, I don't think there's any subsitute for lots and lots and lots and lots of armour between me and whomever is flinging things at me.

As for these fancy devices for shooting down incoming missiles, what happens when they run out of ammo? Or if (bearing in mind current state of funding in my beloved nation's armed forces) they're simply too shoddily manufactured to work properly. At least you know where you are with several inches of Dorchester or whatever they're using these days.

Of course, assuming I get in, I plan to use that other defensive measure available to me. Distance. There's no way you'd catch me driving a Scimitar around in the streets, it's all about open country, and being a zippy little bugger.

[spmetla]

GB, You'll find that with the strick ROE in urban fights and well any area with civilians that Mk 19s are rarely used. They are irreplaceable in a real fire firefight but for popping off warning shots or putting a few shots through an engine block in a crowded area the .50 can't be beat. Also the .50 has a lovely, distinct sound to it. When that thing goes off everybody knows and will stop what they are doing, a great attention getter.

It'd be neat if gave the TC of the Abrams a mini turret/cupala like they have on the M1117, though sized down of course. Having an M2 and a Mk19 side by side looks like a beautiful thing to have.

[Oleander Ardens]

About tactical mobility could somebody give me a rough percentage of the bridges in Iraq suited for other vehicles but not crossable by the Abrams?

I have seen many bridges in poorer countries which seem on the verge of crumbling even when a small bus crosses...

Cheers
OA

[Oleander Ardens]

Canada gets Leo 2 for A-stan. From http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2252


Backgrounder
Renewing the Canadian Forces' Tank Capability

BG–07.012 - April 12, 2007
THE REQUIREMENT

The heavily protected direct fire capability of a main battle tank is an invaluable tool in the arsenal of any military. The intensity of recent conflicts in Central Asia and the Middle East has shown western militaries that tanks provide protection that cannot be matched by more lightly armoured wheeled vehicles.

Simply put, tanks save lives, providing soldiers with a high level of protection. In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s use of lethal and readily available anti-armour weapons, such as improvised explosive devices (IEDs), is a clear threat. Canada’s Leopard 1 tanks have provided close direct fire support and mitigated the threat of IEDs, as well as landmines. The tanks have also provided the Canadian Forces (CF) with the capability to travel to locations that would otherwise be inaccessible to wheeled light armoured vehicles, including Taliban defensive positions.

Renewing Canada’s tank capability will enable the CF to meet current operational needs in the short and long term. Canada’s 30-year old Leopard 1 tanks are due for replacement, and Leopard 2 tanks offer more protection against IEDs and landmines; and are technologically more advanced than their predecessor. Furthermore, by 2012 there will no longer be logistics support and spare parts for the turrets of Leopard 1s, resulting in complete obsolescence by 2015.
THE PROCESS

A number of options for renewing the tank capability were considered, ranging from refurbishment to surplus to new.

Refurbishing the tanks is not an option as the 30-year old Leopard 1 turrets will be obsolete in 2015. It is also unsuited to operations in hot climates. Acquiring new tanks off a production line was also examined, but delivery would not occur for a few years and the individual tank cost is approximately three times as expensive as procuring and upgrading the same capability that exists on the surplus market.

When examining the surplus tank option, Canada approached six allied nations to enquire about availability. Formal proposals from three nations were thoroughly evaluated by Public Works and Government Services Canada and the Department of National Defence (DND) in terms of price, upgrade costs, delivery schedule, operational performance, survivability and through-life operating and maintenance costs. Based on this evaluation, the decision was taken to acquire up to 100 surplus Leopard 2 tanks from the Netherlands and negotiate a short-term loan arrangement with Germany to borrow 20 combat-ready Leopard 2A6 main battle tanks to address immediate operational requirements. This decision represented the most balanced and affordable approach for both short-and long-term requirements.

Canada is negotiating government-to-government agreements for both borrowing and acquiring the Leopard 2 tanks. The total project cost of the loaned tanks, the acquisition of 100 surplus tanks from the Netherlands, the requisite upgrades and enhancements to this new Leopard 2 fleet, and an initial acquisition of spare parts is $650 million, which will be funded from existing departmental allocations.
DEPLOYING COMBAT-READY TANKS

The tanks being loaned from Germany are fully operational, and will be deployed to Afghanistan in conjunction with the next rotation of personnel this summer.

These tanks are able to operate in intense heat as their electric turret systems and more powerful engines generate significantly less heat when operating than the hydraulic systems of Canada’s 30-year-old Leopard 1 fleet. They will also be fitted with climate control systems once in theatre.
ACQUIRING A PROVEN, MODERN MAIN BATTLE TANK

The surplus, modern Leopard 2 tanks being acquired from the Netherlands represent a unique opportunity to acquire proven, effective main battle tanks at a fraction of the cost of a similar, new tank. These tanks have been well maintained and stored in climate-controlled facilities. Due diligence has shown that these tanks will serve Canada effectively, well into the future. In addition, surplus Leopard 2 tanks have been acquired by a number of nations in recent years and have been put into operational service very successfully. This is a proven capability. Their advanced features include significantly increased personnel protection against explosive devices and landmines, an ability to travel considerably faster in difficult terrain, more powerful engines, and stronger firing capabilities.
CANADA’S NEW LEOPARD 2 FLEET

The acquisition of 100 tanks represents the minimum fleet size to support a deployed tank squadron. These 100 vehicles would be broken down into operational and supporting squadrons as follows:

* For deployed operations, the Canadian Forces need two combat-ready squadrons of approximately 20 tanks each: one for deployment and a second for rotation into theatre to allow for depot repair and overhaul of the first.
* An additional two squadrons of 20 tanks each are required for collective and individual training in Canada.
o Individual tank training would be conducted by the squadron based at the Combat Training Centre at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick
o The squadron based at CFB Wainwright at the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre would conduct collective unit training to prepare for deployments.
* The final 20 vehicles will consist of key support vehicles such as armoured recovery vehicles, armoured bridge-laying vehicles and armoured engineering vehicles (i.e. dozer, plough, excavator).

BENEFITS FOR CANADIANS

This acquisition represents a significant opportunity for Canadian industry. Once negotiations are complete, the Dutch Leopard 2 tanks will be transported to Canada where they will receive the necessary upgrades to final Canadian Forces standards.

In the coming months, the Government of Canada will conduct one or more fair, open and competitive processes for the long-term in-service support of this fleet.

The Canadian Industrial Benefits policy will apply as appropriate. In this context, it may apply to future support, repair or upgrade contracts. The Canadian Industrial Benefits policy is the Government of Canada’s way of leveraging benefits to the Canadian economy as a result of our defence procurements.
THE FUTURE

The Canadian Forces have always planned to retain a direct-fire capability and recent conflicts have confirmed the importance of retaining a tracked tank capability. The Leopard 2 main battle tanks will bring strength, added protection and the ability to access difficult terrain that a wheeled vehicle cannot provide.

This acquisition is a further demonstration of Canada’s New Government’s commitment to renew and transform the Canadian Forces, providing them the equipment they need to do the demanding jobs we as Canadians ask them to do.

What do you think?

OA

[Whacker]

In response to the original topic:

I can assure that my mother-in-law is still very alive and kicking, and not at all obsolete.

:bow:

[spmetla]

Though the Leo II won't have other tanks to go against I'm curious to see how if fares in Afghanistan. It's surprising that the Canadian C2s are the second time Leo Is are seeing combat even though its 30 years old. Leo II though would be a lot heavier than Leo I and as pointed out by Oleander some place just don't have suitable bridges.

It is interesting though that Leos and T-62s and T-55s are the the only armor in the country. It's like a coldwar rematch but with them working together.

[Oleander Ardens]

Though the Leo II won't have other tanks to go against I'm curious to see how if fares in Afghanistan. It's surprising that the Canadian C2s are the second time Leo Is are seeing combat even though its 30 years old

I'm also quite curious. BTW it is rumoured that the guys pressing for the use of the C2 in Afghanistan knew that it would show it's age and that it had the issue of heating up considerably - over 50 degree C have been reported. So the deployment proved that tanks were very usefull but that the old C2 were also on the verge of breaking down.

The DoD, after the pressure by soldiers in combat gave in and scrapped the MGS and buyed instead of new 66 MGS 100 little used and well maintained Leos. Not a bad deal indeed. The 20 german Leos A6M are more mineresistent than most other top-notch MBT.

Anyway it seems like that C2 has the ability to go where the LAV III couldn't, stand what a LAV III couldn't and deliver what a LAV III couldn't. The FCS and the optics and the accuracy of the gun are still world-class, at least the Canadians are with them top performers in NATO tank games. The footprint and tail are of course bigger that the LAV's.

OA

[spmetla]

From what I've read about the US LAVIII (Stryker) its been found out that while useful and having a few benefits over tracked vehicles a M113 APC still outperforms Strykers. As for the MGS supposedly the 105 gun is way too powerful for the chassis, will flip it if fire broadside, and the fumes and flames potentionally injure crew members. I wish the US would adopt the M8 MGS like they had orignally planned before Strykers came along. Also Strykers are not as airportable as they were claimed to be so now their use as a rapid deployment force seems impossible to fulfill.

[Oleander Ardens]

M113 APC still outperforms Strykers.

Tactical mobility is according to some NATO guys which drove both wheeled and tracked for sure greater for the M113 APC. Note also that the Stryker has quite a big turning cycle while the M113 APC can just spin around if attacked in a narrow place.
Protection should be better in the Stryker though.


As for the MGS supposedly the 105 gun is way too powerful for the chassis, will flip it if fire broadside, and the fumes and flames potentionally injure crew members

Hm perhaps the platform is simply too light, but a reduced pressure or a combination of recoil-reducing measurements may allow them to use the 105. But it should have a good margin of security, you don't want to have your own soldiers roasted by your own cannon. However the issue of limited ammo capacity - just 20+ -will persist.

A bigger and heavier IFV - like the Boxer - with a 105mm gun with high elevation and depression would be a nice - but of course it would be not so easily deployable. Could provide good indirect and direct firesupport, store a good deal of ammo and be able to stand a beating. On the other side it wouldn't be as light and airdeployable. But given that even lighter IFVs are putting up pounds, eliminating the ability to use the lighter transport aircrafts, puts them into roughly in the same class.

OA

[spmetla]

Double post, please delete

[spmetla]

As for the MGS this is the system that was supposed to take the role the Stryker MGS is trying to take now:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-ags.htm

M8 Armored Gun System
The FMC XM8 was designed to combine a tank's firepower with a highly mobile, air-droppable vehicle. AGS was intended to be the Army's new combat vehicle, but in the form of a highly deployable, light-weight vehicle, with high fire-power and reconfigurable armor protection. The AGS is equipped with a 105-mm. main gun, manned by a crew of three, and designed for rapid strategic and tactical deployment. The AGS was intended to replace the M551A1 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne Division, and was expected to replace TOW-equipped HMMWVs in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Light). A total of 237 systems were planned for procurement. The cancellation of the M8 Armored Gun System left the US Army airborne forces dangerously low on firepower.

The M8 is the result of the Armored Gun System (AGS) concept that originated in the early 1980s to provide light forces with more powerful direct support. In 1980 the Army's 9th Infantry Division was selected as the test unit for the new High Technology Light Division (HTLD). The HTLD was designed to fight in the deserts of Southwest Asia. Critical pieces of equipment needed to realize the division concept were never available. The Army was only able to field prototypes of some key pieces of the high technology equipment. In other cases, such as the Armored Gun System (AGS), it could not even field prototypes. The AGS was never successfully developed. The substitutes did not provide the capabilities envisioned by the original concepts. These failures hamstrung the division's development.

The AGS is not a tank -- it may look like a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a thin-skinned vehicle with a gun on it. The vehicle was designed to support the infantry from a position where it can fire and be behind dirt with an elevated gun and to fight in areas where its not going to run into tanks. It has more than one role, and it just doesn't kill tanks. It kills other kinds of targets. It has to be able to bust bunkers, shoot into bunkers, go into urban areas and shoot into windows, and have a round that will spray shrapnel -- that will "take out" people who are firing hand-held weapons or machine guns. US forces using enhanced direct-fire weapons such as the Armored Gun System would fare better than forces equipped with current firepower.

The M8 resembles a conventional tank, but only requires a crew of three through the use of an autoloader. Its main armament is a 105mm Rheinmetall XM35 tank gun. The M-35 cannon is a low-recoil gun that allows the use of previously developed 105mm ammunition. The autoloader holds 21 projectiles with nine more stowed forward near the driver. Fire control is provided by a digital fire control system with microprocessors and a databus similar to that on the M1A2. The gunner's primary sight is a day/night thermal sight and integrated laser range-finder in a stabilized mount.

Its unique features include the use of modular appliqué bolt-on armor that is not used in a load-bearing application. The armored gun system used titanium appliqué armor. The M8 can be fitted with three levels of protection:

Level I against splinters
Level II against armor piercing small arms and small cannon fire
Level III against cannon up to 30mm
Its design also permits rapid installation of two additional versions of add-on, modular armor protection that allow deploying units to tailor the AGS to meet expected threats. The AGS base version weighs 19.5 tons. The level-two combat-loaded weight version is just over 23 tons, and the level-three combat-loaded weight version about 25.5 tons. The base level and level-two AGS versions are transportable on C-130 aircraft. The AGS can also be airdropped by parachute.

The 105mm M35 Gun was developed as an improvement to the existing M68 Gun. Performance goals for the M35 include decreased weight, recoil impulse reduction, same accuracy as M68, use of current 105 ammunition, front gun installation for easier maintenance field replaceable recoil cylinders, and a powered breechblock designed for autoloader compatibility. The M35 program development included design, analysis, testing, and generating the Technical Data Package (TDP) for manufacturing production. The M35 was selected as the main armament for the 105mm M8 Armored Gun System (AGS).

In its base armor configuration, it can be low-velocity airdropped from a C-130 aircraft. The AGS was the Army's only armored vehicle specifically designed for delivery by air. As such, it is considerably lighter than traditional main battle tanks and, though well armed, it is not intended to fight other tanks alone. The AGS is capable of Low Velocity Air Drop (LVAD Parachute) or more conventional roll-on/roll-off delivery by airlift aircraft. A C-130 can carry one AGS, while the larger C-141, C-17, and C-5A can carry two, three, and five AGSs respectively.

The XM8 began development as the Close Combat Vehicle Light (CCVL) in 1983. After almost a decade of test and development the contract was awarded to FMC Corporation. The crew is protected by an aluminum hull with steel armor modules and power is provided by a Detroit Diesel 6V-921A 550 hp turbo-charged V-6 diesel engine and a General Electric HMPT-500-3EC hydro-mechanical transmission. Additional armament consists of a 7.62 coaxially-mounted machine gun and a .50 caliber M2 antiaircraft machine gun.

In 1980 the Army established a need for a Mobile Protected Gun System (MPGS) to support its light divisions. Although an organizational and operational plan was developed, further actions on the MPGS program were deferred in 1982. A ROC document for the AGS was approved by the Army in 1985, but the AGS could not be sufficiently funded and was terminated in 1987. In 1989 the Commander, XVIII Airborne Corps, stated the need to replace the M551A1 Sheridan, and he endorsed the 1985 AGS ROC as needing only minor revisions to meet his requirements.

The revised AGS ROC was approved by the Army in September 1990, followed shortly thereafter by the DAB approval of its acquisition as a non-developmental item. In late 1991 The US Army issued a Request For Proposals for 300 Armored Gun System tank destroyers to replace the M551 Sheridan. The vehicle will be armed with a 105mm EX-35 rifled gun provided by the government. Six prototypes must be completed in 18 months, with production to begin in late 1994. At least a dozen makers of existing armored vehicles were expected to reply to the RFP.

After a market survey indicated that nothing "off the shelf" would satisfy the ROC, the Army Systems Acquisition Review Council (ASARC) in May 1992 approved a program, beginning with EMD, to develop and produce the AGS. FMC, now part of United Defense Limited Partnership (UDLP), was the winning contractor. A program restructuring in FY94 to reduce program concurrence also decreased the number of LRIP systems and slipped first unit equipped (FUE) by about 2 years.

In 1993 survivability test assessments were initiated the Armored Gun System. Early live fire tests for this program either demonstrated that the initial AGS design meets its requirements or provided data to support design fixes. One design feature that resulted in a 'surprise' outcome was the ammunition compartment feature that failed to contain the reaction of the ammunition when struck by realistic threat weapons.

The Army received six prototype XM8 Armored Gun System (AGS) vehicles in FY 1994 from a contractor for technical and early user testing. Extensive AGS testing was scheduled to continue through 1997.

In the fiscal 1996 budget the Armored Gun System was slated to enter production. The Army's Armored Gun System was terminated in 1996, and the FY 97 budget abandoned the Armored Gun System program. When the Army submitted its proposed fiscal 1997 budge, Defense Secretary William Perry instructed the service to plan for an additional cut of 20,000 troops to pay for weapons modernization. Rather than accept a cut from 495,000 to 475,000 troops, Army leaders argued they could obtain the necessary modernization funds through acquisition reforms and operating efficiencies. The fiscal 1997 Defense budget request contained no further Army troop cuts, but the Army cut the AGS program in an attempt to save money for other modernization efforts. The decision was made by the Army as part of an assessment of the warfighting value of the armored gun system compared with alternatives and how they could do it spending less funds. The total program cost, including development, was estimated to be $1.3 billion. The Army had planned to procure 26 low-rate initial production vehicles with 1996 funding of $142.8 million. Termination liability was funded from research and development appropriations because the program was under an engineering and manufacturing development contract. The Armored Gun System is an example of a program in which manpower and personnel integration [MANPRINT] considerations were purposely rejected. It is not a coincidence that the Army canceled the program.

The AGS chassis was also intended to serve as the platform for the hypervelocity line-of-sight antitank (LOSAT) missile system, and building the chassis for the LOSAT alone would be rather expensive.



I think with the choice of the Stryker MGS over the M8 MGS the army made a bad decision. All the Stryker Brigades that have deployed so far have done it without a MGS, not good when the standard weapon on the Stryker is only a .50 Cal or a Mk19. Though the M8 has its problems at least it would be able to add some firepower to current Stryker Brigades instead of having to wait for the current MGS to get worked out. Ammo capacity though is still limited though slightly better than the Stryker.

[Oleander Ardens]

Thanks for the info


The AGS is not a tank -- it may look like a tank, but it's not a tank. It's a thin-skinned vehicle with a gun on it. The vehicle was designed to support the infantry from a position where it can fire and be behind dirt with an elevated gun and to fight in areas where its not going to run into tanks. It has more than one role, and it just doesn't kill tanks. It kills other kinds of targets. It has to be able to bust bunkers, shoot into bunkers, go into urban areas and shoot into windows, and have a round that will spray shrapnel -- that will "take out" people who are firing hand-held weapons or machine guns. US forces using enhanced direct-fire weapons such as the Armored Gun System would fare better than forces equipped with current firepower.

Is kinda sad that still some people don't understand that such vehicles are not Tanks, but nice things which add a lot of firepower in a lot of different situations.

I'm convinced that the Boxer would be a supreme wheeled platform for such a gun. Big and stable, loads of room and good armor. The hull is designed to beat blast mine attack by shaping blast away. Additionally a double-lined hull soaks up critical blast deformation says Army Tech. Kinda ironic that the British pulled out in 2003 at a time where everybody wanted the lightest possible vehicle and started to own project, the Future Rapid Effect System. It should be deployable with an C-130. Three years later this "key factor" for the pullout was dropped as "unworkable", in a time where a vehicle like the Boxer would save lives... :wall:

To sum it up. You invest in project 1, pull out because it can't be transported by the C-130 and continue to pay for its development. You start a costlier project 2 which gets delayed and so you drop the C-130 requirement for which sake you started it. Meanwhile the reality on the grounds demand for the vehicle of project 1. Somebody should :whip: the decision makers...

BTW, the Boxer

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mrav/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_MRAV

Interesting that they want to put a 120mm Mortar on or into it...

OA

[spmetla]

Well I guess that we'll see how the Leopard 2A5 fares in Afghanistan. http://www.armorama.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=97151&page=1
Who would have thought that the Danes of all people would be the first to try the Leo in combat and the first with the Leo 2 in combat.

I hope the success of the other Allied nations use of tanks convinces the US to send some tanks to Afghanistan as well. I want to be a tanker after my Cav Scout time and I don't want to only go to Iraq.