Repo
Reported in other parts of the interweb, the US Army is set to acquire a new light tank that is not the M 8, as released by Panda (where are they now). Who knows if / when we will see a lot of this.
Reported in other parts of the interweb, the US Army is set to acquire a new light tank that is not the M 8, as released by Panda (where are they now). Who knows if / when we will see a lot of this.
5 Likes
Canât help but think someone confused âlightâ with âmediumâ.
Usually âsmall & lightâ go together - like Scorpion - at 8 tons, this looks âhuge & heavyâ at 38 tons.
Ok, perhaps in comparison to M1 at 70 tons, but itâs still stretching the term.
Mal
2 Likes
Could they make it any taller? Should be fun to try to hideâŚ
2 Likes
when I first looked at the picture I was thinking another BAE pile of junk. The Sheridan concept was about twenty five years too early. The ideas were nice, but the technology just was not there at the time. And of course Mac. got his fingers in the pie to further screw the pooch. The gun launcher on paper seemed like a fantastic idea, but needed a complete redesign even before production started. The rocket never saw a minute in combat, and was never right from the get go. Yet it would destroy another tank effortlessly.
Fast forward to modern stuff and modern hydraulics and the above system is quite doable. Rumors have been flowing in the old work place that there is a hybrid electric drive in the design works. I wonder if this is the one? The old AAAV power pack was a hybrid drive system, but also pretty large (cu. ft.). Plus itâs already tooled up! (saves huge cost concerns). Looking at the rear of the tank, it looks like there is enough room in there. I wonder if the main gun is a take off from the low recoil 90mm gun that Rhinemetal developed. They actually considered regunning Sheridans at one time with that 90mm gun.
With GDLS getting the contract; Iâd expect it to be built in Lima Ohio or maybe Warren Michigan. Both areas need the jobs
gary
Totally agree, thatâs far from light Mal and again with Tom, it certainly stands tallâŚturret looks out of proportion to the hull.
Whatâs unknown is if add-on armor package can or is installed. The 16 smoke grenade launchers is nice and I wonder how many salvos it can fireâperhaps four.
Was Griffin II shown with Iron Fist APS? Is that a Boomerang antennae at the left rear? There is no CROWS-LP RWS which should have been a Requirement since these are âFirst to fightâ Airborne units and TCs shouldnât be sticking their heads outside firing the TCâs HMG. Ah, the Army can add CROWS later.
Iâll reserve judgement until I read more because Centauro 120mm 8x8 has a 120mm cannon and 20 rounds for a compact size. MPF is 105mm and tracked; however, sure beats Stryker MGS 105mm.
Not sure why they couldnât have used the MGS?
Like this tank really has much more armor than a wheeled vehicle.
The U.S. Army is fortunate that they were ever able to agree on a vehicle at all. I worked as an analyst for the Army when the âMobile Protected Firepowerâ concept was first floating around and I touched the periphery of the early concept development. Many of the people I worked with were retired officers or colonels who remembered the M-8 program pretty well. We all wondered if the Army would save itself some trouble and just revisit something that was well established. Thatâs about where my involvement ended and shortly after I changed jobs.
The plus side is that the Army actually realized its dire need for a âlightâ tank instead of fiddling around like it did with the M-8, or trying to stick with the disastrously stupid Stryker MGS, or continuing to delude itself that the Abrams meets every conceivable armor need. The preceding concepts that came to our organization were all on the opposite side of the spectrum (if you want to laugh and cry about the U.S. Armyâs 2010âs combat vehicle procurement philosophy, look up the âGround Combat Vehicleâ). Well before my time as an analyst was the early 2000âs FCS concept, but I remember hearing about it as a lieutenant. Again, they were absurd concepts but people put serious time and money into it before realizing that it wouldnât work. The Stryker was sort of a byproduct of the FCS concept. Itâs funny how we always go back to the old tried and true warfighting concepts.
When we initially analyzed the concept, the whole idea was to give the 82nd its heavy cavalry squadron back. HMMWVâs with TOWâs and grunts with Javelins are great, but still only considered a stop-gap. The Sheridans were supposed to be replaced for years, but they just were not. The other point of this thing was to provide a rapidly deployable and scalable capability to other light units. How that would work on an MTOE, I donât know. Maybe light infantry divisions will receive their own cavalry squadrons from which theyâll parcel out tank platoons or sections. Perhaps events in Ukraine will help lead to a more sober analysis and force mixture, but Iâm not counting on it anytime soon.
Anyway, this clearly isnât an air droppable tank. Iâm sure what happened was that the armor community got ahold of the concept and wouldnât settle on anything less than 35 tons. The Army might have a combined âmaneuver centerâ, but it is still heavily divided by the interests of grunts and tread heads. We know that with the way things go, this thing will grow in requirements and add-on armor packages and it eventually wonât even be air transportable. Thatâs a shame and itâll defeat the whole purpose. Nevertheless, Iâm still glad the U.S. Army realized that it needed a tank other than the gas burning Abrams.
Or at least Iâm assuming that the Army was smart enough to put a diesel engine in this thing. I largely skimmed the article, but I didnât see anything on the engine. Iâd also like to see more on the updated 105 mm canon. I was told years ago by someone involved in the Abrams program that the 105 mm actually had substantially more potential, but we were fixated on matching the Soviets (and Brits) with big guns. I donât know, but I was also told that 1970âs - 80âs tankers were never confident that their M-68âs would penetrate later generation Soviet tanks with reactive armor. Iâm guessing this thing has an M-68A1.
2 Likes
Why not just develop a better missile for the M551?
ALL tanks are air dropable⌠
3 Likes
I can only deduce that 38tons is the new âlightâ - the Brit (so far abortive project) Ajax is around the same weight, and thatâs meant to be basically a recce vehicle; a far cry from CVR(T) thatâs for sure.
Also of course, thereâs that old adage (not necessarily always proven Iâll grant you) that if it looks right it is right; this, to me, just doesnât look right.
1 Like
Chinese light tank, Type 15
The US hasnât had a useful light tank since WWII - Sheridanâs notwithstanding. Can any armor or doctrine folks explain why we need one? I mean, we arenât going to drop them out of aircraft - that never did work well. What else is needed that an Abrams or Stryker canât do?
The M41 turned out pretty well. In Vietnam it was shown to be quite capable of knocking out Soviet T-54s and their Chinese clones. That was a design that went quite well.
1 Like
I KNEW I saw Iron Fist APS and Boomerang on the MPF. Note the oval turret face radar and the two-shot Iron Fist launcher by the rear Boomerang Anti-Sniper microphone stalk (four Iron Fist projectiles total).
It may be a fanâs Photoshop concept, perhaps not even official, but it might be possible.
And that is exactly why Airborne wants a light tank because the Airborne are confined to HMMWVs (soon JLTVs) with TOW, M2 .50cal, and MK-19s with a few LAV-25s from the USMC. There is no heavy firepower or armor because there are no USA light tanks. FCS was canceled before any 120mm FCS tank was produced.
The Requirement for a USA light tank never went away. Itâs just that the Pentagon rarely endorsed it beyond the back burner on the stove. Heavy Mech Armor always gets priority.
The SBCT only have CROWS II, but now they have IM-SHORAD Air Defense and 30mm Dragoon turrets. M1A2SEP Abrams are heavy.
Having a âlightâ (or medium) tank is all about scalability in a conflict and politicians might not want to commit heavy mechanized forces into âBush Wars.â In Bosnia, the US Army didnât want to commit heavy mechanized forces so the US Army went in light with HMMWVs and against Serbian BTRs and BMPs, that is very light indeed. Back then, the M1114 armored HMMWVs and M1117 ASVs where entering service and the US Army couldnât get them fast enough. A MPF will provide added armor and firepower than Airborne units on the ground lack. Syria called for M2A2s because the SOCOM MRAPs and M-ATVs were again deemed too lightâmade more noticeable when Russian BTRs bullied SOCOM M-ATVs on the road.
The Stryker MGS was the loser to the tracked M8 AGS and the US Army tested Centauro, Rookiat, and a lot of other light tank contenders a long time ago. The M8 AGS won the competition, but no Army general cared to push to fund and build it outside of the Airborne generals. So politics got in the way and the loser MGS was built and fielded instead because General Shinsheki pushed for Strykers after Bosnia as a Quick Reaction Force that HMMWVs couldnât suit that well.
Technically, I think reactive armor and TUSK-like kits can be added to the MPF to increase armor protection and weight, but I donât think that these kits were developed yet. GDLS hasnât released specifications on the MPF so no one really knows how many rounds or its speed and range.
Maybe the Chinese saved weight on the armor by using drywall?
2 Likes
Not sure but this is the uparmored version.
1 Like